![]() Yet, developers feel bound to that initial UML design and they are trapped in it, even when the detailed code that they write eventually-and almost always, inevitably-reveals the unforeseen flaws that were not immediately obvious in the high-level UML design. This is because there is an assumption that the UML diagram is correct when in fact it isn't. Armed with that knowledge, you can go and start refactoring to simplify your design.ĭoing it the other way around, the way I think OP is probably thinking of doing it, usually results in complicated and convoluted designs and code that is more likely than not to be incorrect. The generated UML diagram can give you a good idea of just how complicated and entangled your software design is. The more useful tools, IMO, are the ones that can take a code base, analyze it, and then generate a UML diagram that shows the high-level structure of software components and the relationships that exist between them. In fact, there's a rule of thumb that says "You can't have a pattern until you have at least three different examples" or something like that. First there were specifics, then people generalized ideas into patterns. They came out of a recognition of similarities between several problems and their solutions. Design patterns did not just come out of thin air. It's the same kind of backwards mindset that thinks that design patterns are the start rather than the end. Unlike the Column chart, a JavaScript Bar Chart is oriented in a horizontal manner using rectangular bars. IMO, the failure is partly because the mindset is backwards. Those projects were pretty much abject failures. I have worked on projects that have tried this approach. This is the approach that's pushed by proponents of Model-Driven Design and Architecture. The idea of creating UML, then generating a skeleton program, then filling in that skeleton with detailed logic and code has been around for quite some time. If your expectation is otherwise, then I suggest you go and read Jack Reeves' essays on how Code is Design. This is why human programmers are still being paid to do that job. You need humans to fill out that skeleton with logic and detailed Java code. Any reasonable expectation in converting a UML diagram to Java would have to be that the generated code is only a skeleton of the program that needs to be written. Written by Morgan Olsen Thursday 2 September 2021 Tools don't make the bartender, but there's no denying that they make life a hell of a lot easier. Thus, there's no computer program in existence today that can create a full-blown, working Java program from just a UML diagram. In fact, a UML diagram is still very much a high-level design spec it is by nature incomplete and does not include enough detail. There are those who think that UML is part of a detailed design specification. This is not a response to the question per se but to the intent behind the question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |