Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 20 2016, @10:35PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-did-they-model-the-removal? dept.

Microsoft has decided to drop the UML (Unified Modeling Language) designer tools from Visual Studio 15, reports Paul Krill at IT World. MS sales and support teams confirmed that few customers were actually using the feature.

"Removing a feature is always a hard decision, but we want to ensure that our resources are invested in features that deliver the most customer value," said Microsoft's Jean-Marc Prieur, senior program manager for Visual Studio.

I've almost never had occasion to use UML professionally other than a few hand drawn designs on scrap paper that were thrown away. I did have a coworker who had a tool that generated UML from code that was sometimes helpful when he explained his work in review sessions. In school UML appeared to be a nightmare that was used for modelling everything but software, yet academics talked about UML one day becoming executable and replacing code.

Do you use UML? Are you going to miss this feature in Visual Studio?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 21 2016, @02:02PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 21 2016, @02:02PM (#417246)

    True (clientside), since they are in *perpetual version lock* on Windows 10. But so meaningless that it should be classified with the false statements.

    I believe the expression is "not even wrong." [wikipedia.org]

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday October 24 2016, @05:45PM

    by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Monday October 24 2016, @05:45PM (#418223)

    It's slightly different from "not even wrong". Not even wrong, as I understand it, implies there is no set of physical laws that could make that statement make sense or otherwise makes it a null statement. GGP's statement is technically true, but means something different than the context implies.

    I don't know the word for such an argument.