[BrendanH]

When starting a program from scratch how useful would it be to use a ULM diagram?
And how often to programmers use them?

[totgeburt]

BrendanH, on 10 July 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

When starting a program from scratch how useful would it be to use a ULM diagram?
And how often to programmers use them?

I find UML quite nice for mapping logic and i use UML diagrams all the time. the code is easy to write after you create a diagram for it. i'm just going to school right now for programming though, i don't have professional experience, but i imagine a pro would say the same.

[jon.kiparsky]

BrendanH, on 10 July 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

When starting a program from scratch how useful would it be to use a ULM diagram?
And how often to programmers use them?

I've hardly ever looked at a UML diagram since CS110. To me, they convey almost no information at all, and there are some really wrong design decisions that obfuscate the information they do carry, and they're not used where I'm working in any case.
The only time I need to extract some information from them is when I'm reading something about design, and then it's either a mindless reflexive decoration to a well-written text or a hopeless last-ditch attempt to save incoherent writing, and usually incoherent thought as well - again, seldom any help at all.

YMMV

[BrendanH]

jon.kiparsky sorry im not sure on what CS110 is.
How do you go abouts planning out a program you want to put together?

This post has been edited by BrendanH: 10 July 2012 - 12:04 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

CS110 was Computer Science 110 - my first Java course. We went over UML, and I read Fowler's little book on it, and I found it was pretty useless.

Designing an application for me is a matter of description. I describe what I want to do, functionally, and that tells me what sorts of data I'm manipulating and what I'm doing with it, and it gives me ideas of what sorts of flexibility and rigidity I want, and then I have an idea of a model.
Then I start sketching out skeleton classes, to see if they fit together the way I think they will. If I'm working with someone, we argue about it, hopefully in a friendly way, and try to look around the corners and find the cases where a given design ties us too tightly or leaves too much flexibility, and generally we come up with a design that way.
There's often a lot of whiteboard, but it's not a formal modeling process, it's drawing lines between boxes to see if it looks pretty or ugly, and to confirm that we're talking about the same things.
I guess my real issue with UML is the degree of needless formalism, not with the idea of a visual representation of a class structure.

[DarenR]

I use hand drawings most of the time made of blocks with words in them that tell me how i want to interact with each other. Then I write pseudo code (sometimes) most of the time I just write the code and change as I go.
UML are nice for some people and a pain for others. Everyone will have their own style and ways of doing things so if you liek them use them.

[lordofduct]

I've always found UML a bit to 2-dimensional for me. On a super small scale, it doesn't hurt, but for most large projects... it just doesn't convey what's going on accurately.

[jon.kiparsky]

lordofduct, on 10 July 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

I've always found UML a bit to 2-dimensional for me. On a super small scale, it doesn't hurt, but for most large projects... it just doesn't convey what's going on accurately.

Ironically, it's the big projects where you most need a visualization of that sort...

[lordofduct]

Yeah, that's the catch 22.

But like you, I just go with my own 'home rules' for designing my projects.