From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2003-01-14T16:53:41+09:00
Subject: What's all this UML stuff, anyway?

In article <3E239DBB.1010003@colebatch.com>,
Dmitri Colebatch  <dim@colebatch.com> wrote:
>My uninvited 2c:
>
>Tim Bates wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 03:23 pm, Phil Tomson wrote:
>> 
>>>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.
>> 
>> I haven't actually used UML before, which is why I'm only just looking for 
>> software for it. The reason is, I come from a strong engineering background 
>> (father was an engineer, I'm now studying engineering myself) and as such I 
>> find it helpful (sometimes even necessary) to get my ideas on paper, draw 
>> diagrams etc. 
>
>I find exactly the same thing - I go through forests of paper just 
>scribbling static class diagrams when modelling problems.  But I dont 
>use any tools, and wouldn't suggest them to anyone (I'd also be 
>interested to hear of reasons for using them).
>
> > I'm currently trying to get my head around the relationships
>> between a significant number of classes and modules. Being a fairly visual 
>> person, I want diagrams, but rather than try and do it with conventional 
>> pen-and-paper methods, and end up as I usually do with lots of lines and 
>> scribble and crossings-out, I thought I'd give UML a shot. 
>
>Remember that UML is a language, not a process (as I understand it).

But isn't it a visual 'language', or am I missing something?  I thought 
it was a way of visually showing relationships between objects and 
classes.
 
Phil
-- 
"Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" 
Amy Weiss (accusing theregister.co.uk of engaging in 'tabloid journalism')
Senior VP, Communications
Recording Industry Association of America