| > If fraud existed it was in the marketing of the CASE tools UML was embedded in. Yes, that was the claim I intended to make. Thank you for saying it more clearly. > smoke and mirrors solutions…proprietary modeling languages…predictable collapse…Big investment means and meant exclusive, profit-driven ambitions, Yes, yes! I can see we totally agree! > not fraud Wait, doesn't that contradict the entire rest of your comment, including the immediately previous and following phrases, "profit-driven ambitions" and "self-serving, big money investment"? How can something both be a "smoke and mirrors" "self-serving" "Ponzi scheme" and also be "not fraud"? It sounds like you agree with all my factual claims, adding supporting points of your own for them, but you think "fraud" is not the right word to use? Why not? My best guess at this point is that you don't know what the word "fraud" means. Also, as a side note, I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean: > By definition, that task was never going to be an easy nor mutable exercise. |
CASE tools were/are no different. You and I have our concerns but P.T. Barnum reminds us, "there's a sucker born every minute!"
The task of unifying and consolidating all of the worthwhile details required in Iconic notation to truly capture the complexity of the thing was never going to be easy nor a finite goal. (e.g. it's a whack-a-mole exercise that doesn't end)
But quite honestly, we are on the same page. If you liken it to fraud - not my monkey, not my circus.