Re: [dev] Suckless UML

From: Nicolai Waniek <>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:42:34 +0200

On 05/10/2011 04:57 PM, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> Good code is supposed to be readable, and should need no
> UML diagram (and probably very few comments).

Though you're right that it should not _need_ a UML diagram, having one
isn't that bad either. This is especially true when you're not just
working on your hobby-4k-LOC-project but within a team on a somewhat
larger project. Or on a project that requires some sort of 'class
hierarchy'. Or... the list continues.

Though UML is not the best thing at all and it is heavily bloated
(especially since UML 2.0, guess most things with a "2.0" in it is just
fucked up) I'd like to punch everyone in the face inventing his or her
own fancy documentation graphics when there's at least something
everyone else would recognize without the need to read an additional
explanation on what the graph wants to present. (this point is of course
invalid when your working group/team has decided on a certain graphical
annotation set).

Very often using something like UML is faster when discerning
class-interactions or hierarchies than looking at the code.

Received on Wed May 11 2011 - 23:42:34 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 11 2011 - 23:48:03 CEST