From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-01-14T14:05:15+09:00
Subject: Re: UML tool for Linux?

On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, 3:53:28 PM, Phil wrote:

> In article <200301131517.24081.tim@bates.id.au>,
> Tim Bates  <tim@bates.id.au> wrote:
>>Does anyone know of a good OO modelling (UML?) tool for Linux, that works well 
>>with the Ruby way of doing things? ie not one loaded with features specific 
>>to C++ or Java...
>>
>>Tim Bates

> I'm not answering your question, but asking you a question... please don't 
> take this wrong, but I've been curious about this UML stuff and since 
> you're asking about UML I'm assuming you know it and use it.  I've never 
> done any UML and I don't know much about it other than it's a graphical 
> way to model the interactions in an OO system.  So with that in mind...

> What good is UML?  I mean, it seems to me that especially with languages 
> like Ruby you could just code your OO system and then refactor as needed.
> You could even use Ruby as a prototyping tool to come up with an OO design 
> for your application and then code the final app in C++ or Java after 
> you've done some experimenting in Ruby.

Doing this kind of prototyping is a great way to work, especially if
you are forced to use Java etc. at work.  You do all your refactoring
in Ruby, gain confidence in you class/object model, and then you can
have that great experience of getting it right first time in the
target language.

I don't know much about UML, but I know I don't really like it.  But I
get the niggly feeling that I would be a better OO analyst if I did
know it.

That said, even though prototyping is a great way to work, some effort
in up-front design is usally warranted in a medium-large project, and
when you do that, you're probably doing UML in spirit if not in name.

> I remember that when I was first learning programming (longer ago than I 
> want to admit) flow charts were still in vogue.... now nobody does a 
> flowchart, they might do pseudo-code, but I haven't seen a flowchart in 
> years.  It seems to me that UML is kind of like flowcharting... am I 
> wrong?

Time will tell, but I reckon you're right. UML seems pretty bound to
old languages like Java and C++. Even if Ruby doesn't take over the
world, something will eventually beat those in "corporate mindshare",
and it will take several leaves out of Ruby's book.  Once that
happens, UML will start looking pretty dated.  But that's evolution,
not a fault of UML as such.  Think of it this way: if no-one ever used
flowcharts, we wouldn't have Ruby.

Gavin