[up-n-atom]

the token usage isn’t sustainable. formal english is a barrier but requirement for specification. brevity is the language of money and that’s the premise of management using ai.

fyi language alone can’t define/describe requirements which is why UML existed.

[jstanley]

Natural language is a fully general system and can define and describe everything.

You could deterministically process any UML diagram into a prose equivalent.

And in fact you couldn't do the other way around (any prose -> UML) because UML is less powerful than natural language and actually can't express everything that natural language can.

[hansmayer]

> can define and describe everything.

Can it also fully describe a composition by Bach or a Rembrandt's painting? In some weird, overly complex way it probably 'could', but it would be very painful. That's why we pick other forms of expression. We use other forms of expression to compact and optimise information delivery. Another benefit is that we cut out the noise. So yes UML cannot describe everything natural language can, but then again why should it - it was designed as a specific framework for designing relations between objects. Not more and not less. Similar for sequence diagrams or other forms of communicating ideas efficiently.

[rzzzt]

There are also diagram notation languages and LLMs are happy to both consume and produce e.g. Mermaid.

[ako]

I think uml exists to help humans understand and communicate specifications, not because language alone is insufficient.

[null_ptr1]

I mean, if you can't agree on what UML is, then what hope do you have to agree on what the spec says?