No one has time to provide examples for an email list. I said in my writeup that I didn't care for the heavyweight RUP. But I've used in several places the UML for documentation. However, if you think that no one is successfully using UML processes for documentation my suggestion is that you get to a few UGs to talk to a few people in the flesh.
I meant that you obviously aren't lucky enough to work with good people. If you want to make something of that, that's fine with me. I can flame too (since that is the specialty of this list). But you say it will always end in tears and I say that you are not correct. That is the nice way to say it. At least you did _not_ say that the "code is the documentation". But you are wrong that UML never works. Rational's tools I've not had luck with, but I stand by my previous writeup on UML. Again, I'm unafraid of a flame if you want to start it. But I also have a 3-year-old, so pointless back-and-forth is something I'm adept at right now. --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Christiano F. Haesbaert <haesba...@haesbaert.org> wrote: > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert <haesba...@haesbaert.org> > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > To: "dereck" <dereckhask...@yahoo.com> > Cc: "Marco Peereboom" <sl...@peereboom.us>, "OpenBSD Questions" <misc@openbsd.org> > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM > On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck <dereckhask...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Messages like this are the reason I lurk here but > seldom say anything. > > > > Yes, we all have our crosses to bear - and some people > have the bad luck of > never working with intelligent people. > > > > Can you provide a real working example ? > Because no one has ever done that for me. > Even if you can, can you provide 2 or three examples ? > I would think again on the "never working with inteliigent > people" part. > Can you or anyone, prove that this works *more often than > not* ? > I'm at the point that people say this and that, but know > one has > *ever* seen it working. > The whole idea seems like a bunch of crap, anyone who has > ever done > any real programming knows that the world is much different > than that > (mine is, at least). > But I'm willing to be wrong. > > > > --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> > wrote: > > > >> From: Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> > >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it > works ? > >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" <haesba...@haesbaert.org> > >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" <misc@openbsd.org> > >> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:48 PM > >> I have sen many attempts at UML and > >> they all ended in tears. Not > >> surprising because UML is an academic thing that > does not > >> apply to that > >> thing we call "reality". Total waste of > time. > >> But wait, it gets > >> better! If you want to see it fail even > more > >> spectacularly use the > >> "tools" they have such as rational rose. > Hilarity > >> ensues, I promise. > >> > >> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, > Christiano F. > >> Haesbaert wrote: > >> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear > my pain: > >> > > >> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and > all this > >> boulshit about > >> > software engineering in my university. > >> > > >> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never > implemented > >> it, and for > >> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia > bought it. > >> > > >> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly > skilled > >> developers, I ask > >> > for your opinion. > >> > > >> > Is my impression completely wrong ? > >> > > >> > Do any of you believe in it ? > >> > > >> > Thanks.
