OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
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 ?
On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, 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. User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of the linux kernel lists found at the wiki: http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much higher profile and allows others guest and host sytems. qemu / kqemu is available in ports. :P /Lars
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
I think the UML the OP is referring to is Unified Modeling Language and Rational Unified Process. On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Lars Nooden wrote: > On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, 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. > > User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of > the linux kernel lists found at the wiki: > >http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp > > I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much higher > profile and allows others guest and host sytems. qemu / kqemu is available > in ports. > > :P > > /Lars
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On Wed, 05.05.2010 at 14:31:32 -0500, Walter Goulet wrote: > I think the UML the OP is referring to is Unified Modeling Language > and Rational Unified Process. I think this solves it: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Lars Nooden wrote: > > :P ;) Kind regards, --Toni++
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On 5 May 2010 16:25, Lars Nooden wrote: > On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, 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. > > User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of > the linux kernel lists found at the wiki: > >http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp > > I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much higher > profile and allows others guest and host sytems. qemu / kqemu is available > in ports. > Sorry for UML I meant Unified Modeling Language. and for RUP Rational Unified Process
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
Hi, I'm not an OpenBSD developer, but would like to chime in anyway: On Wed, 05.05.2010 at 16:08:47 -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about > software engineering in my university. Many of those things are not really "bullshit", but they aim at vastly different environments and goals than most free software does. > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it, and for > some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it. For RUP, the people who wrote it, had a company running for some years before being bought out by IBM, where they now produce subsequent versions of their software, and hone their theories. I'm too lazy to pull out facts to make similar statements about UML, but these tools imho address different prob > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers, No doubt about that, but > Is my impression completely wrong ? > > Do any of you believe in it ? what kind of "confidence" do you want for, say, your pacemaker? Or for a satellite system? Or a worldwide money transfer system? Or your car's ABS brake? Want to trust millions or billions of dollars and/or human lives, including your own, to the genius of a handful of people? And if so, how do you want to scale? Or how do you want to pass governmental requirements before being allowed to let the software run? Would people like OpenBSD developers probably are, be equally successful in such regulated enviroments, even if they wanted to be in there in the first place? Kind regards, --Toni++
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert < haesba...@haesbaert.org> wrote: > On 5 May 2010 16:25, Lars Nooden wrote: > > On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, 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. > > > > User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of > > the linux kernel lists found at the wiki: > > > >http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp > > > > I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much > higher > > profile and allows others guest and host sytems. qemu / kqemu is > available > > in ports. > > > > Sorry for UML I meant Unified Modeling Language. > and for RUP Rational Unified Process > > I think you guys missed the :P. The app teams here at my work are big RUPpies but it seems to me that here it's: 1) Over applied on simple projects that don't need it. 2) Adds a lot overhead and bureaucracy creating long delays in projects. It has created some good practices with regards to configuration and change management here.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
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 ?
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 03:48:24PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > I have sen many attempts at UML and they all ended in tears. Not > surprising because UML is an academic thing Wasn't it a business thing from the beginning on, as you wrote in the next paragraph? > 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.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
ce' and 'message passing'. Indeed, if you are working in C you could still do this prototyping with paper as well - though constraining yourself to UML would be somewhat pointless. Finally, you should know that RUP is a _process_ that uses UML. UML is a discipline that doesn't need RUP. I'm not a fan of RUP, but I can see how it might be helpful in large shops to clarify all of the issues in both programming and when planning business issues. UML can be done with pen and paper, or with a drawing tool. There is a free one from Cay Horstman called "Violet". And there are for-pay ones that are good as well for drawing the forms, etc. [I've used MetaMill and I like it. I think it is about 100 USD for a single user.] One negative of computer drawing is that the promise of code generation doesn't seem to actually work very well. No tool that I've ever worked with should be used for code generation apart from a starting point. Basically UML is a process of object-oriented design and you can take it or leave it. But I've never met anyone that understood and used it who did not become a much better object _programmer_ (without the procedural logic mixed with his objects, and the global variables needed to hold stray messages). YMMV --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert > Subject: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > To: "OpenBSD Questions" > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 7:08 PM > 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 ?
Hilarity. ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/uk/itsolutions/developer/RSDC2007/Rational_song.mp3 On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 03:48:24PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > 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 ?
> 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 ?
On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck 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 wrote: > >> From: Marco Peereboom >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" >> 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 ?
> 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. A couple of decades ago I learned a lot about structured analysis, structured design, blah, blah. UML is the same stuff, basically. Here's the scoop: as a system designed by geniuses to be performed by idiots it is a complete failure. If you're an idiot you just follow the rules and don't understand why and that never works. If you're intelligent and you're following rules made for idiots then you're an idiot after all. The only way out is to understand the principles involved and apply them in a way that works for you, in your situation. A pad of paper may be helpful also. I'm really glad I learned about analysis and design, and daily I use things I learned, but no way in hell am I following any Methodlogy. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchand...@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
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 wrote: > From: Marco Peereboom > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" > Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" > 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 ?
Ok, now I think we can stop this post. No one can present a working example. Sorry for the noise.
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 wrote: > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > To: "dereck" > Cc: "Marco Peereboom" , "OpenBSD Questions" > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM > On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck > 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 > wrote: > > > >> From: Marco Peereboom > >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it > works ? > >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" > >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" > >> 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 wrote: > From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO > 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 ?
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:05:52PM -0700, dereck wrote: > 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. Just like structured programming in the eighties and whatever the bs was called in the seventies and sixties. Every decade has its own bs development methodology that is the moar bettar devmeth but then 10 years later it isnt't. Yes OOP will go away and be replaced with something "dynamic" which seems to be the rage right now. Let me coin an acronym for it. DML dynamic masturbation language. Great software has one thing in common, it was developed by a group of great developers who know what they are doing. Than there is the rest. > > > --- On Wed, 5/5/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: > > > From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO > > 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 ?
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 wrote: > > > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert > > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > > To: "dereck" > > Cc: "Marco Peereboom" , "OpenBSD Questions" > > > > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM > > On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck > > 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 > > wrote: > > > > > >> From: Marco Peereboom > > >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it > > works ? > > >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" > > >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" > > >> 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 ?
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 wrote: > From: Marco Peereboom > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ? > To: "dereck" > Cc: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" , "OpenBSD Questions" > 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 > wrote: > > > > > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert > > > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it > works ? > > > To: "dereck" > > > Cc: "Marco Peereboom" , > "OpenBSD Questions" > > > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM > > > On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck > > > 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* ? > >
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> 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 ?
Straw man and false analogy in one post. Batting 1000% so far. --- On Thu, 5/6/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: > From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO > 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 ?
The computer industry is driven by fashion instead of quality...
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On Wed, 5 May 2010 19:25:54 -0700 (PDT), dereck wrote: >Like I said - you are a smart guy! And you are not. If you were you would know that none of what you are trolling about is of any relevance to OpenBSD. It's just noise. If you think that spamming the list to find the one or two people who are curious about the stuff you are flogging is a good idea, then tell me how you differ from the spammers flogging bigger dick pills in email addressed to teenage girls. Putting "OT" on your subject line is equivalent to saying that you don't mean to hurt me and then smashing my nose. Go away. *** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I subscribed to the list. Mail to the sender address that does not originate at the list server is tarpitted. The reply-to: address is provided for those who feel compelled to reply off list. Thankyou. Rod/ /earth: write failed, file system is full cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> 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. LMAO Why don't YOU provide an example of some USEFUL program in Java? > toward it changes that not one bit. And a fair portion of this new Java is > documented with UML. I had the unpleasant experience of workin with Java. Worst. Documentation. Ever. > 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?
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: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers, I ask > for your opinion. I'm not an OpenBSD Developer. Probably you asking on the wrong list. > > Is my impression completely wrong ? > We've made a whole Java based ERP Software over the last 7 years with RUP. BusinessModel UseCaseModel ImplementationModel Analysing Model Programming It works. If time (=money) has no meaning. After the years this comes up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development > Do any of you believe in it ? Sometimes a bit but in the end: No.. Forget it. Take some parts (the graphics), present it to the customer and they will be happy for your COMPETENCE and you can make some money (at least 120$/hrs). Especially BIG companys are fascinated from that, it's a market. The idea sounds brilliant, but as long as you are not a dumb coder sitting at the end of the world, coding for 5$/hrs it doesn't make sense. At that point you will save the money. I guess tha RUP was developed for that purpose. GLOBAL WARMING/MARKETS ehhh... Get a good team an do the job. Much quicker, more efficient AND cheaper. And the code is also better. Andri -- Ganzer deutscher Satz. Ohne Schnick-Schnack und DeepDive.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On May 05 19:40:23, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: > > 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. "Hear once, spam everywhere"
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
* Christiano F. Haesbaert [2010-05-05 21:12]: > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about > software engineering in my university. UML works. UML is very important - for commercial software development. makes shiny graphs that enable you to sell useless overcomplicated crap to tie-wearing decision makers. if everybody implemented efficient systems, how would the industry survive? 2 off-the-shelf servers instead of a rack full plus the uber storage system of the week and a big database for a rather simple webapp? please. that can't be the goal. think of the children, their dads need jobs! -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
Thank you all for your replies. Some points to note: 1 - I did not intend to start a flame war, although now I realize it may have sounded like one. 2 - I spend 5 hours everyday in a place where *most* people believes in this bullshit and started to question my sanity (ohh pooor me). 3 - I wanted to hear the other side of the story. 4 - I know the answers I have here are often the real deal, no economic/academia/industry/buzzword/bullshit influences. 5 - I regret not asking for people to reply me off list (learned my lesson). I got many insightfull answers off list as well (others not that much). I ask you not to answer to this thread anymore, mail me off list if you have anything to share. Thanks and sorry for the noise.
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:57:29PM -0300, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: > The computer industry is driven by fashion instead of quality... Not really. In all seriousness, the software development industry is driven by companies that believe that deep down, software developers are like brick layers: some number are incompetent, and of the competent ones some are faster/better than others, but mostly they are interchangeable. You want a brick layer then you hire one for the standard price. This notion they have is false, but there's a whole industry that sells to them based on their misconceptions. This naturally leads to whole new methodologies every decade or so (long enough for the new thing to become a buzzword, get adopted everywhere, and then for companies to discover that projects still fail and the software still sucks and costs a fortune to develop). The alternative is to recognize that programmers are not interchangeable, and that up front effort in selecting the right people and providing them with a good environment makes far more different that going with whatever methodology is the current Big Thing. That's backed up by studies and written about in books, but most managers do not want to hear it. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchand...@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
On 05/06/2010 10:49 AM, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:57:29PM -0300, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: The computer industry is driven by fashion instead of quality... Not really. In all seriousness, the software development industry is driven by companies that believe that deep down, software developers are like brick layers: some number are incompetent, and of the competent ones some are faster/better than others, but mostly they are interchangeable. You want a brick layer then you hire one for the standard price. This notion they have is false, but there's a whole industry that sells to them based on their misconceptions. This naturally leads to whole new methodologies every decade or so (long enough for the new thing to become a buzzword, get adopted everywhere, and then for companies to discover that projects still fail and the software still sucks and costs a fortune to develop). The alternative is to recognize that programmers are not interchangeable, and that up front effort in selecting the right people and providing them with a good environment makes far more different that going with whatever methodology is the current Big Thing. That's backed up by studies and written about in books, but most managers do not want to hear it. It's not just the software development industry, sadly. This is a convenient abstraction that many (most?) managers seem to subscribe to. Corey
