UML has been getting a lot of criticism from all sides, even from the modeling community. Sure, it has its warts:

• it is a huge language, that wants to be all things to all kinds of people (business analysts, designers, developers, users)
• it has a specification that is lengthy, hard to navigate and often vague, incomplete or inconsistent
• it is modular, but its composition mechanism (package merging) is esoteric and not well understood by most
• it is extensible, but language extensions (profiles and stereotypes) are 2nd-class citizens
• it lacks a reference implementation
• its model interchange specification is so vague that often two valid implementations won’t work with each other
• its committees work behind closed doors, there is no opportunity for non-members to provide feedback on specifications while they are in progress (membership is paid)
• <add your own grudges here>

However, even though I see a lot of room for improvement, I still don’t think there is anything better out there. The more I become familiar with the UML specification, the more impressed I am about its completeness, and how issues I had never thought about before were dealt with by its designers. And it seems that the OMG recognizes some of the issues I raised above as shortcomings and is working towards addressing them. Unfortunately, some fundamental problems are likely to remain.

In my opinion (hey, this is my blog!), for a modeling language to beat UML:

• it must be general purpose, not tailored to a specific architecture or style of software
• it must not be tailored to an implementation language
• it must be based on or compatible with the object paradigm
• it must not be limited to one of the dominant aspects of software (state, structure, behavior)
• it must be focused on executability/code generation (and thus suitable for MDD) as opposed to documentation/communication
• it must be modular, and user extensions should be 1st class citizens
• its specification should follow an open process
• it must not be owned/controlled by a single company
• it must not require royalties for adoption/implementation

My suspicion is that the next modeling language that will beat the UML as we know today is the future major release of UML. Honestly, I would rather see a new modeling language built from scratch, focused on building systems, that didn’t carry all that requirement/communication/documentation-oriented crap^H^H^H^Hbaggage that UML has (yes, I am talking about you, use case, sequence, instance and collaboration diagrams!), and developed in a more open and agile process than the OMG can possibly do. But I am not hopeful. The current divide between general purpose and domain specific modeling communities is not helping either.

So, what is your opinion? Do you think there are any better alternatives that address the shortcomings of UML without imposing any significant caveats of their own? Have your say.

It seems that people that resist the idea of model-driven development (MDD) do so because they believe no tool can have the level of insight a programmer can. They are totally right about that last part. But that is far from being the point of MDD anyways. However, I think that unfortunate misconception is one of the main reasons MDD hasn’t caught on yet. Because of that, I thought it would be productive to explore this and other myths that give MDD a bad name.

Model-driven development myths

Model-driven development makes programmers redundant. MDD helps with the boring, repetitive work, leaving more time for programmers to focus on the intellectually challenging aspects. Programmers are still needed to model a solution, albeit using a more appropriate level of abstraction. And programmers are still needed to encode implementation strategies in the form of reusable code generation templates or model-driven runtime engines.

Model-driven development enables business analysts to develop software (a variation of the previous myth). The realm of business analysts is the problem space. They usually don’t have the skills required to devise a solution in software. Tools cannot bridge that gap. Unless the mapping between the problem space and solution space is really trivial (but then you wouldn’t want to do that kind of trivial job anyways, right?).

Model-driven development generates an initial version of the code that can be manually maintained from there on. That is not model-driven, it is model-started at most. Most of the benefits of MDD are missed unless models truly drive development.

Model-driven development involves round-trip engineering. In MDD, models are king, 3GL source code is object code, models are the source. The nice abstractions from the model-level map to several different implementation artifacts that capture some specific aspect of the original abstraction, combined with implementation-related aspects. That mapping is not without loss of information, so it is usually not reversible in a practical way, even less so if the codebase is manually maintained (and thus inherently inconsistent/ill-formed). More on this in this older post, pay attention to the comments as well.

Model-driven development is an all or nothing proposition. You use MDD where it is beneficial, combining with manually developed artifacts and components where appropriate. But avoid mixing manual written code with automatically generated code in the same artifact.

What is your opinion? Do you agree these are myths? Any other myths about MDD that give it a bad name that you have seen being thrown around?

Rafael