[kstrauser]

To each their own, of course, and if you like it and it helps you then right on! But as an outsider, none of those diagrams are more useful to me because they use UML shapes than a plain box-and-arrows diagram (sequence diagrams excepted, but those predate UML).

Diagramming is very useful. I just don’t see the value of dogmatically following UML-style formatting.

[gaaclarke]

Someone said it elsewhere but the point of UML was to remove the 5-10 minutes from every meeting where you describe the language of your diagram.

From the authoring side it helped that it was UML because that meant I had a standard language for defining the diagram with plantuml.

[kstrauser]

Alright, I concede that’s a good point. You’re using a diagram to communicate an idea, and it’d be a pain in the neck to have to teach everyone a new vocabulary before you start each meeting. In your experience, do people understand enough UML that you don’t have to explain it?

I was thinking about this conversation overnight, and I wonder if a “UML 2” or “UMLite” that had a very limited vocabulary and a narrow set of use cases would be well received. Basically, not “here is how you can describe every noun, verb, and relationship in your enterprise so you can automate them” but “here’s how we draw classes, databases, and sequence diagrams to communicate with other people”. I’d be all over that.