Re:All the UML you need to know
by arethuza on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @06:42AM
(#10379515)
I had a similar experience about 12 years ago - turned out the company in question simply used their UML based methodology as a sales tool. Projects never actually worked that way in reality - what they said they did and what they actually did were completely different. Once I realised that the development process was actually perfectly OK and nobody actually looked at the UML I was fine.... ;-)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I was developing SW in the 1990s (before XP, then Agile, become popular), and we were supposed to use UML, Rational Rose etc. However, that was how it was supposed to work, not how it actually worked.
The biggest relief in starting to use XP was that the methodology described how we actually worked, not how we were supposed to work.
I was on a big project in the early aughts (pure XP, pairing, tickets, stories, tests (40,000 of them at the end) etc), on which, we were contractually obliged to A. hire on at least 4 accenture consultants, and B. purchase 4 rational rose seats.
We simply stuck the accenture clowns alone in a room with rational rose, and we never heard from them again (nor did we ever see any uml). Best case scenario.
Re:All the UML you need to know
by crdoconnor on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @07:12AM
(#10379612)
I always thought the quality of rational rose itself was the best argument against UML.
After all, that's probably what it was designed with.
Oh my, I can so identify with this.
I used to do product reviews for a magazine, and Rose was the only review software I decided not to keep. And I'd have felt bad giving it to anyone else.
From that time on, any mention of Rose in a job description automatically disqualified it.