UML WAS: Re: Banned Erlang

Per Bergqvist per@REDACTED
Wed Feb 26 07:27:18 CET 2003

I don't really have a problem with UML as a modelling language.       
I find it useful for high level descriptions even if I think          
some of the predecessors where more intuitive.                        
What I have a problem with is using UML, Rose and code generation for 
1) It is too time consuming to describe all the details of any worthy 
2) At least I completely loose the overview my own work.              
3) If the producer of the (very buggy) tools can't get it right why   
should I use it to build mission critical systems ?                   
4) The only meaningful result i.e. the generated code is almost always
far from optimal.                                                     
5) The "natural" choice is to generate C++. The number of failures of 
large C++ projects is very very long.                                 
6) It is almost impossible to do emergency corrections.               
(For many years I have often been called in for "digital firefighting"
when something is way wrong with a system.                            
Many times I have not even been involved in the development.          
Without a simple structure it is extremely hard to fix the problems.  
As a result you completely rely on the people who did the design.     
This is what the believers claim you avoid using the tools.           
When you finally find the designer it shows that the "tool" was soo   
productive and he doesn't fully understand the design either.)        
To summarize, I am a true believer in simple structure.               
Writing this I don't really understand I always complain about it.    
Maybe I should advocate it since others using UML would in the end    
only mean less competition.                                           
All of you people with employeers forcing you to play the UML "Telma &
Louise" game have my sympathy.                                        
> I thought UML was the winner of an RFC from the OMG for a modelling 
> language.  It kinda makes sense why it's object-centric and why you 
see it                                                                
> for Java and C++ projects.  Still, I wouldn't necessarily call it   
> end-all-be-all                                                      
> of modelling languages.                                             
> With my past experience with UML, I tend to feel object developers  
> spend most of their time with the Class Diagrams, which don't really
> transfer well to languages like Erlang.                             
> Perhaps 10% of the time I'd see a good Sequence Diagram or          
> Diagram.  Less than that a good Statechart Diagram.  IMHO these     
might have                                                            
> some value in an Erlang setting.                                    
> --erikp--                                                           
Per Bergqvist                                                         
Synapse Systems AB                                                    
Phone: +46 709 686 685                                                
Email: per@REDACTED                                                   

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list