Re: [dev] Suckless UML

From: Christophe-Marie Duquesne <>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:44:10 +0200

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Nicolai Waniek <> wrote:
> 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.

I am not saying UML is worthless (it can indeed have some value to
quickly document some hierarchy or behavior in a large project). I am
saying if your code needs UML documentation to be understood, then it
is not suckless.

Also, I tend to dislike auto-generated documentation because the
valuable part is very small and hidden among loads of crap. I think
when you need a documentation, it is always better if you write it
carefully and not let an automatic tool do all the diagrams, because
if you try to cheat, you will often end up with something that does
not explain better how the code works.
Received on Thu May 12 2011 - 08:44:10 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 12 2011 - 08:48:03 CEST