Math-thinking-l Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6
rbotting at csusb.edu
Thu Jan 5 14:38:02 EST 2006
I wrote a review of the new UML2.0 Edition of Ambler's work for
Computer Reviews (http://www.reviews.com/). I liked his
attitude but the version that I reviewed
(2005) has many examples/rules that do not match UML2.0 and some
advice I (personally) think is wrong.
Martin Fowler's book "UML Distilled: Third Edition" is
much more reliable but make sure you get a printing
where the inside front cover is NOT a duplicate of the
page that is opposite it!
Comp Sci, CSUSB.
----- Original Message -----
From: math-thinking-l-request at geneseo.edu
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2006 0:00 am
Subject: Math-thinking-l Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 22:55:50 -0500
> From: "Kenneth A Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com>
> Subject: RE: UML
> To: <kirby.urner at computer.org>
> Cc: math-thinking-l at geneseo.edu
> Message-ID: <037a01c611ab$ed417e50$0b02a8c0 at WATTP4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Scott is a smart guy. He's very into Agile Development (AD). The
> bookreferenced was written in 2002. The UML version was 1.4 at
> that time. The
> current version is 2.0, and it took over three AGONIZING years to
> get it as
> good as it is. It's still not perfect.
> UML is indeed complex. So is English. UML is not as complex as
> English. I
> have a good friend (PhD in Physics from Cal Tech - Python / Zope
> expert)that knocks out a few UML static structure diagrams on
> napkins. He says he
> likes using UML that way ... There's also a book that claims to
> teach you
> UML in 24 hours. My friend learned what he needed in less than
> two. I
> guess that is what you call a "subset".
> UML is not a process or methodology - it is a language (we agree),
> and most
> people don't "write or speak" it well, especially on napkins. But
> generally, I totally disagree with every other bullet point from
More information about the Math-thinking-l