* Uriel [2011-05-12 19:54:26 +0200]:
> Fortunately somebody already has done some writing on the topic:
>
> http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/bmarticles/uml/page.html
>
it is also worth noting that even original contributors of uml
find it problematic
http://port70.net/~nsz/arti
So much retarded crap in this thread, it is hard to know where to start.
Fortunately somebody already has done some writing on the topic:
http://archive.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/bmarticles/uml/page.html
UML makes CORBA and C++ look like sane, productive and useful
technologies by compar
On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:57:13 +0200, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
On 05/12/2011 03:51 PM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
I still have to find any sane mathematical notation for parallelism
in
programming languages though...
Of course CSP goes in this direction, but as soon as your language is
not based on CSP
On 05/12/2011 03:51 PM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> I still have to find any sane mathematical notation for parallelism in
> programming languages though...
Of course CSP goes in this direction, but as soon as your language is
not based on CSP in any way, you yet again have to document describing
the
> I am
> saying if your code needs UML documentation to be understood, then it
> is not suckless.
I fully agree.
> Also, I tend to dislike auto-generated documentation because the
> valuable part is very small and hidden among loads of crap.
That depends on the tool you (have to) use. As an ex
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Nicolai Waniek wrote:
> On 05/10/2011 04:57 PM, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
>> Good code is supposed to be readable, and should need no
>> UML diagram (and probably very few comments).
>
> Though you're right that it should not _need_ a UML diagram, having on
On 05/10/2011 04:57 PM, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> Good code is supposed to be readable, and should need no
> UML diagram (and probably very few comments).
Though you're right that it should not _need_ a UML diagram, having one
isn't that bad either. This is especially true when you're not
On 05/11/2011 07:02 AM, CHABOT Simon wrote:
> I have already used it to draw graph, but never I never though to try it for
> UML. I take a look !
In case you add documentation with doxygen to some projects, you can use
it to produce UML diagrams of your classes. Doxygen itself uses dot...
So usi
Le mercredi 11 mai 2011 à 12:41:14, Connor Lane Smith a écrit :
> On 10 May 2011 23:52, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> > For suckless diagramming, I prefer Graphviz (also known as "dot")
>
> +1
> Graphviz is very pleasant to use. Never used it for UML, though.
I have already used it to draw graph, b
Hey,
On 10 May 2011 23:52, Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
> For suckless diagramming, I prefer Graphviz (also known as "dot")
+1
Graphviz is very pleasant to use. Never used it for UML, though.
cls
On Tue 10 May 2011 04:36:04 PM PDT, CHABOT Simon wrote:
> Could you give me some suckless softwares name to work with UML ?
For suckless diagramming, I prefer Graphviz (also known as "dot"):
http://www.graphviz.org
You can draw UML diagrams with it, as this article illustrates:
http://www.ffnn.
For my class this was the most efficient way:
Begin to write your code in notepad and use the builtin "search and
replace" function to create longer variable names, then copy-paste
this mess to Netbeans, (create a few random classes with other
people's names above them - this way nobody will blame
On Tue, 10 May 2011 17:01:28 +0200, Mate Nagy wrote:
honestly i'm surprised by this lack of reaction to "UML" + "suckless"
in
the same sentence. Usually this mailing list is swimming in bile
regarding much more innocuous topics to the point of unreadability;
so
why not now?
although I haven't
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:36 PM, CHABOT Simon wrote:
> I was thinking about a software where UML diagram is describe, and then
> compiled (something like LaTeX, you see ?)
Someone managed to do that with MetaUML & EMP and made a tutorial about it[1].
Otherwise, UML pretty much suck by design, y
On 10 May 2011 17:01, Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:50:01PM +0200, timow+...@diningphilosopher.de
> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-10, CHABOT Simon wrote:
>> > Could you give me some suckless softwares name to work with UML ?
> honestly i'm surprised by this lack of reaction to "UML" + "su
Le mardi 10 mai 2011 à 04:50:01, timow+...@diningphilosopher.de a écrit :
> The best solutions I could find was UMLGraph (http://www.umlgraph.org/)
> and MetaUML (http://metauml.sourceforge.net/old/index.html).
MetaUML looks great, thanks !
--
CHABOT Simon
Université de Technologie de Compiègne
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:50:01PM +0200, timow+...@diningphilosopher.de wrote:
> On 2011-05-10, CHABOT Simon wrote:
> > Could you give me some suckless softwares name to work with UML ?
honestly i'm surprised by this lack of reaction to "UML" + "suckless" in
the same sentence. Usually this mailin
On 2011-05-10, CHABOT Simon wrote:
>
> Could you give me some suckless softwares name to work with UML ?
The best solutions I could find was UMLGraph (http://www.umlgraph.org/)
and MetaUML (http://metauml.sourceforge.net/old/index.html).
Cheers, Timo
If your program needs UML diagrams documentation, it sucks by
definition. IMHO building such a tool would go against the suckless
philosophy. Good code is supposed to be readable, and should need no
UML diagram (and probably very few comments).
Good luck. UML sucks so I doubt there has been any attempt to make suckless
UML software.
If I were you I'd just struggle with crummy tools for a semester since you
will never use UML again.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, CHABOT Simon wrote:
> Hi all,
> Today, an UML lesson have been given
20 matches
Mail list logo
