问题描述
时的UML仍然被视为一个记录软件设计的一个可行的方法？
Is UML still seen as a viable way of a documenting a software design?
有关引用加分的备份任何声明：）
Extra points for references that back up any claims :)
推荐答案
我回答其中提到到UML作为文档工具问题的新版本。我将在UML尝试的角色作为通讯工具为好，因为他们是在同一个。
I am responding to the new version of the question which speaks to UML as a documentation tool. I will try and role in UML as a communication tool as well, because they are one in the same.
上下文：：此观点为具有建筑师横跨数百个系统/软件10000小时+努力设计，并保持一贯的文档和实践的系统组合驱动我每天的工作。这意味着，我曾与文档质量，一致性和清晰度多次斗争。
Context: This perspective is driven of my daily job as an Architect having to design across hundreds of systems/software, 10,000 hour+ efforts, and maintaining consistent documentation and practices for a portfolio of systems. This means that I have had to grapple with documentation quality, consistency, and definition many times.
摘要：还有什么？当然，你可以讨论文件的水平，是UML真的比读书code条件逻辑更好？可能没有，但在一个整体，没有真正的替代，如果问题的空间足够大。
Summary: What else is there? Sure you can discuss levels of documentation, is UML really better than reading code for conditional logic? Likely not, but on a whole there is no real alternative if the problem space is large enough.
如果UML不是别的它的是作为文件和通讯。 UML精粹由Martin Fowler写的，这是近了UML的书籍的事实标准，进行这种看法。福勒，如果我读正确，相信UMLS主要用途是通信，它文档，只是静态的那种。与其说水平低规格和code产生。
If UML is nothing else it is for documentation and communication. "UML Distilled" written by Martin Fowler, which is nearly the defacto standard for UML books, carries this opinion. Fowler, if I read correctly, believes UMLs primary use is for communication, which documentation is, just the static kind. Not so much low level specs and code generation.
与大型复杂的工具IBM，Borland公司，微软，和Eclipse支持UML。许多其他较小的或有针对性的供应商也提供了UML工具。我不知道一个比较公认/图实施/建模标准在那里的。
IBM, Borland, Microsoft, and Eclipse support UML with large complex tools. Many other smaller or targeted vendors also provide UML tools. I am not aware of a more accepted/implemented diagram/modeling standard out there.
此外考虑替代方案，什么图形符号是比较常见？为什么不使用的大多数人都知道。大多数学院/大学，如果他们教的任何图表或建模使用UML。除了一些流程或有条件的逻辑图的风格也没有多少人在那里，有据可查，规范化。
Additionally consider the alternatives, what diagram notation is more common? Why not use what most people know. Most colleges/university if they teach any diagramming or modelling use UML. Other than some flow or conditional logic diagram styles there is not much else out there, well documented and standardized.
标准符号是什么大多数人都知道更为关键。在大的项目，你不能总是读取code，聊到写它的人，或要求贸易伙伴什么，他们又想要的。这是标准的关键。不一致的使用会造成混乱，而且它真的会如人们被允许发明或添加到符号的非正式的方式。此外，您不希望创建一个文档，总是要解释你的意思。
Standard notation is even more critical that what most people know. In large projects you can't always read the code, talk to the person that wrote it, or ask the business partner what they wanted again. This is where standards are key. Inconsistent usage will cause confusion, and it really will if people are allowed to invent or add to the symbols in an informal way. Additionally, you don't want to create a document and always have to explain what you meant.
决不发明，除非你有太多，这是UML最有可能的选择。想想每一个新的人加入团队或公司的时间。什么是一个盒子的意思是，箭头？可这支箭连接到这个三角形在这个方向，这是什么意思？你基本上要发明一种领域特定语言/模式。所以你需要一个培训presentation，教程，范例，复核工作，安排培训课程，维持发明方法的文档等。然后，当然你切换出任务的合作伙伴，或者雇用一个新的人，你所要做的一切再次。让人们集中学习系统不是你的文档的方法，或者必须使它转移知识或技能如UML。让专家专注于编码和设计，而不是发明一种文档/图标准。
Never invent unless you have too, which is the most likely alternative to UML. Think about every time a new person joins the team or company. What does a box mean, arrow? Can this arrow connect to this triangle in this direction, and what does it mean? You basically have to invent a domain specific language/model. So you need a training presentation, tutorials, examples, review work, schedule training sessions, maintain the invented documentation method etc. Then of course you switch out-task partners, or hire a new person and you have to do it all over again. Let people focus on learning the systems not your documentation method, or if the have to make it transferable knowledge or skill like UML. Let the experts focus on coding and designing, not inventing a documentation/diagram standard.
要所有的UML批评我不活在象牙塔或玻璃泡，我每天都有数百个不同的文件的方法来住，因为人们创造他们或我期待在接下来的供应商技术。 UML是不会完美，但它是最常见的，是不够好，而不是平凡更换。
To all the UML critics I do not live in a ivory tower or glass bubble, I have to live with hundreds of different documentation methods everyday as people invent them or I am looking at the next vendor technology. UML is not perfect, but it is the most common, is good enough, and not trivially replaceable.
有效的其他问题：
- 我应该用UML可视化文件，其中可以code注释接班？
- 什么范围或方面更重要？
- 什么可能是一致的一套适合我这种系统或应用程序的工作的文物？ （这是一个关键的问题，如果你在一个企业工作，有数百个应用程序/系统）
- 我们在哪里存储文档，并使其可搜索和发现。
这篇关于UML是仍然被视为一个记录软件设计的一个可行的方法？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！