Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
I just lurk on this list. But UML modeling is not BS when used in some places. In Linux or BSD programming, though, it would only really work for user applications that are more OOP; UML isn't easy to do in C. [No need to whack me, I know that OOP can be done in ANSI C but it usually is not.] If you are going to use Objects and go that route in your programming, then UML can be very helpful. Because UML is intimately tied to the understanding of the _state_ of an object looked at through multiple charts. Unfortunately there is a broad, learned consensus that most people that use OOP don't actually do OOP correctly. When you are looking at UML you are really getting a handle on the state transitions, and that is mostly a object understanding of programming. It _is_ very useful for user space applications if used correctly and used for object-oriented programming in C++ or Java or Smalltalk (or even Ruby or Python). It would help to define your objects that are needed and the states of the objects through the lifetime of the application. Ideally too, the use of UML helps to constrain your thinking, meaning you have to put the messages that the objects pass with the correct objects and not leave 'globals' that lurk around the application (which often happens in bad OOP design). And this modeling naturally leads to the code objects needed and object abstractions needed to do the code Interfaces, that will in turn be used to create the objects through the implementation of those interfaces. Two (very big) caveats, though, must be admitted straight off. First, UML is hard to work with in procedural languages. Since Linux or BSD is still mostly written and extended in C then it is really hard to use it successfully. Procedural languages don't have the same 'context' of thinking as OOP languages (even the hybrids like C++). C doesn't have the programming contexts (as usually written) that allow for language-based interface creation, or inheritance. And remember, C is usually used as a collection of small programs working together, not with a large monolithic 'driver' program that collects instantiations of objects that then pass messages to one another. What I mean to say is that the C requires (mostly) a different way of thinking as that which you are trying to ideally use in UML. Many Linux kernel people openly express hatred for C++ and Java - these people are very wedded to the understanding of smaller programs often piped together to do something useful. For those persons UML would be complete waste of time (and I'd agree with the characterization and the talent of these people). Secondly, UML is difficult to use without discipline. So UML doesn't fit (at all) the traditional (and useful) understanding of the software hacker who wants to get the program working and will happily rewrite and revise many times to get it just right. It is more a learned discipline, and I agree that initially it could seem heavy-handed and unnecessarily large and complex. But in your CS classes you are NOT designing a system with 5000 objects in three large modules with 15 programmers working in tandem. I'd argue that the state transition understanding given by good UML discipline can be helpful such larger projects, since you really, really want to know what someone else's code is supposed to do at a transition point. The model would clarify the issues AND constrain the required transitions expected from someone else. [If you are expecting a message of one type and get another from another programmer's code, then someone has not followed the model!] Also there is something else that should be mentioned if you are going to use OOP since there is at least one place that UML can really help you - especially if you are going to work in teams of programmers larger than 3. In addition to constraining your thinking along the lines of where does the originator of message live? it also (when done right) can work as a natural prototyping language. Fred Brooks (controversially) wrote that every programmer working with a new program should Plan to throw one version of the software away - you will anyway. He meant, of course, that it is difficult to get all of the understandings of a program correct the first time. I would argue strongly that UML done correctly and thoroughly could help you design the first one or two versions of a system with modeling only, and then allow those to be thrown away with paper before coding actually begins. Used with disciple UML could really help to clarify what is needed, and can even help prevent scope creep if the objects are done correctly. But again, it really only cleanly works (in most cases) with object programming and those languages which naturally lend themselves to 'classes' and 'inheritance' and 'message passing'. Indeed, if you are working in C you could still do this prototyping with paper as well -
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
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. --- 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.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
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.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
Yep, you are correct. So, can I get your phone number to send our clients to when they need another pointless opinion intended to start a flame? Shake out your head gear. There is a difference between user programs and system programs. The overwhelming majority of user-land programs are done in OOP languages. That Java nonsense just happens to be the most popular programming language. Added with C# (the MS Java) the numbers dwarf all other comers. Since the vast majority of people are using Java, C#.NET and VB.NET I suppose that the object-oriented nonsense will just fade away. --- On Wed, 5/5/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? To: haesba...@haesbaert.org, lars.cura...@gmail.com Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:40 PM I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about software engineering in my university. Unified Modeling Language... I think it's just part of all that Java non-sense.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
I would really like to have your contact information as well for consulting. You are obviously a really smart guy! I'm sure that you did not read my writeup in which I _SPECIFICALLY_ pointed out that C code wouldn't fit the UML. And since the other genius wanted my own examples (as if most companies don't have NDAs) the thread is closed for him. [Which is fine; like I said I already have small kids at home.] The point of _your_ posts seems to be that anyone with experience is an idiot. So, the email list for you (as usual) works like this: someone asks for information on a topic, seemingly wanting actual information/experience/views on the list. In this particular case you simply can't pull your usual tactic and blare reading the f***ing archive! because of the topic itself. Another person takes the time to write his own experience and view on the topic, INCLUDING the redundant point that you just made about OpenBSD and the unsuitability of C. And this person answering the honest issue (with his opinion) is the idiot spouting nonsense because of...? Because Marco says so with a pithy I'll give you a counter-example!. Which is really smart since the counterexample was in the original post! Like I said - you are a smart guy! Do you consult? If not you're missing out on a lot of income given I meet 3-4 people top-notch people like you a month. But here are the facts smart man: Java is so common that it is known to as _the_ application language of our time - it is ubiquitous. Your bigotry toward it changes that not one bit. And a fair portion of this new Java is documented with UML. It is useless to talk of projects that don't work in the real world, since 65% of ALL IT projects don't fulfill business expectations. I'll go back to lurking on _your_ list, but you should pat yourself on the back. I learn so much from you and your usual learned responses. And the next time you are being the A** I'll be able to say - hey, read the f***ing archive since this will be archived as well. --- On Thu, 5/6/10, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote: From: Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? To: dereck dereckhask...@yahoo.com Cc: Christiano F. Haesbaert haesba...@haesbaert.org, OpenBSD Questions misc@openbsd.org Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 1:40 AM On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:02:07PM -0700, dereck wrote: 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. Let me provide you an example of great software that wasn't written using UML. OpenBSD. Took me 5 seconds. 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
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
Straw man and false analogy in one post. Batting 1000% so far. --- On Thu, 5/6/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br wrote: From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? To: dereckhask...@yahoo.com, haesba...@haesbaert.org, lars.cura...@gmail.com, vt...@c3sl.ufpr.br Cc: misc@openbsd.org Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 2:50 AM Shake out your head gear. There is a difference between user programs and system programs. The overwhelming majority of user-land programs are done in OOP languages. That Java nonsense just happens to be the most popular programming language. Yes and the vast majority of people is using Windows. Windows is betther than BSD. Bach is crap. Nobody listen to that. 50 Cent is much better.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
Why don't YOU provide an example of some USEFUL program in Java? You are joking, right? Much of your day-to-day life activity (silently) works in Java. For one example: most banking and financial firms have multiple millions in investment in Java back office, Java Web Services and Web Pages, and usually Oracle running the backend. Oracle has EMBEDDED the JVM in the database itself to leverage the use of the language directly. Unless you use a mattress for your savings and live without checking I think that I've answered this question. But just in case you missed it, most non-Blackberry (RIM) cell phone companies are hot to complete their new phones in Android, which is Java. It is useless to talk of projects that don't work in the real world, since 65% of ALL IT projects don't fulfill business expectations. Can someone translate that? Try this - I mean you can use Google right? The below was found simply typing in a web search for most IT projects fail http://www.agile-software-development.com/2007/08/most-it-projects-fail-will-yours_06.html Also - I won't be posting more answers. You win, OK? Several list freaks have already said that I'm spamming the list.
Re: Real men don't attack straw men
Hello Mayuresh, a possible reason can be that he is thinking Some of it might stick. Not likely. Go back under your rock, along with RMS and the rest of the bunch. -- Michael Schmidt MIRRORS: Watcom ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/CompilerTools/Watcom/ OpenOffice ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/OpenOffice/
Re: The future of NetBSD
I'm just a lurker on the OpenBSD list, but I think Charles is right about Linux. The code is better then people give it credit for, and considering it's vast popularity and what all it's accomplished, the bazaar model has worked wonders. Well, the hype certainly put the zap on your head. Wonders? So, if I take a picture of a van Gogh painting, copy it as poorly as a three-year-old child, put an OSI license on it and call it open van Gogh that would be wonderous? They are copying known work, shooting for a target that has already been hit. Ignore IBM's and ESR's hype. Linux is a rather poor re-implementation. The BS is the only thing that is accomplished, unless you count the illusions of grandeur as well. What I'd _really_ like to hear is the status of the total move-over to Linux that IBM announced (what was it?) 3 freakin years ago? How is that coming, old Big Bloser?
Re: PF or BPF
This is getting ridiculous! The guy said he was under attack.(!) What is the point of a _misc_ list anyway? He's not clogging the dev list! The responses here are totally out of line. Haven't any of you guys EVER had a desperate situation before? Sheesh. --- Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 13 February 2006 12:45, Ted Unangst wrote: On 2/13/06, Dave Feustel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What can BPF do that PF can not? different things. OK, I'll bite. Such as? no, if you can't read a man page, you aren't qualified to read my emails either.
More OT - Re: Vote against software-patents
How about a two-track vote? We should press hard to prevent software patents AND the GPL. The GPL is pushing a lot of the rush to further patents, as more of more GPL advocates openly copy software and then place it into a licensing scheme that is even WORSE than patents. Patented software can always be negotiated with $ and within the legal system. GPL'd software can't be. We should be fighting both of these movements tooth and nail. We should insist on non-GPL licenses and not use anything (ANYTHING!) licensed with it; and we should boycott companies that work to patent software. Dereck --- Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote: You also received an e-mail from Norbert Bollow, right? :-) Indeed I did. And I want everybody to get involved and to start thinking about it! That's why I took the liberty of write a message about this seemingly off-topic subject. # Han
anyone with experience with Network Monitoring tools...
that are BSD licensed? What are user experiences with different ones? Note, they must be either commercial or BSD licensed. I'll write my own before I use a GPL'd product. :-). Thanks, Dereck
