It's sad how one can be misquoted and then for that misquote to be picked up by someone else with both then making a spin of the events to support their position. How silly is that.
Juha-Pekka Tovanen quoted me from my OOPSLA panel as saying that "when the project gets closer to the delivery you normally throw away UML models." Juha-Pekka then went on to extol the virtues of DSM - which one it was not clear - declaring how every other artifact, from executables to test cases, documentation, and configurations, could be derived. Harry Pierson picked up on Juha-Pekka's post and in turn Harry's was picked up by Steve Cook.
Let me be excruciatingly clear: Over the years I have been consistent in saying that in a) the most important artifact of any software development organization is executable code and yet b) modeling is essential in constructing such executables. This is because c) models help us reason about, specify, construct, and document software-intensive systems at levels of abstraction that transcend source code (and the UML is the accepted open standard for doing so). That being said, it is a pragmatic reality that d) some models are essential (and should be retained) while others are simply scaffolding (and should be discarded). I have never said and do not say now that one should throw away all models, as Juha-Pekka then Harry then Steve imply.
While I'm ranting, Juha-Pekka, Harry, and Steve, would you please point me to just one DSM out there in production (meaning that toy languages are profoundly uninteresting to me) that does all that Juha-Pekka says it can do (namely, to generate the complete executables, test cases, documentation and configuration from the domain specific models, making it such that I never have to touch much less look at source code)?
gbooch 120000P81R 2 Comments 745 Visits