Little tutorials discusses why UML has lost. It's a correct, if slighty tedious, overview of why the favourite bullshit "technology" of the 90s failed.
Naturally, it fails to mention the main, zeroth, reason: the sort of people who ever cared about nonsense like UML are also prone to spending countless hours categorizing and discussing the patently obvious.
Sadly, this can be traced as the reason for the apparent popularity of many other "technologies" out there. REST anyone?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
THANK YOU. I am completing the second assignment in two days, for different classes, that requires me to use this "language" (I'm a computer science major, for pete's sake). I am so sick of it that I googled "UML bullshit" and your post came up. You described my feelings perfectly. I feel as though so many of these frameworks are cobbled together by employees simply to justify keeping them on staff.
I also don't appreciate the condescension by those who insist on constantly using UML to demonstrate workflows that you rightly indicated as being "patently obvious". Just because I am a computer scientist doesn't mean I can't understand a simple workflow.
I agree - I also found this post by googling 'uml bullshit'. I've been working with a bunch of UML guys since the start of the year, and their zealotry for patently trivial and obvious has driven me batshit insane some days.
A Computer Science professor here, preparing a course on Software Engineering. UML is in the syllabus, and after wading through textbook after textbook, I was thinking "This is bullshit, isn't it? How can it be taught everywhere, and be in so many textbooks, if it's bullshit?"
Thank you for convincing me that I'm not going insane.
Seriously: it's nice to have a standard set of symbols for class diagrams etc., and a tool for drawing them. But there's nothing more to UML than that. There never was.
Post a Comment