[HN Gopher] UML diagram for the DDD example in Evans' book
___________________________________________________________________
UML diagram for the DDD example in Evans' book
This project uses UML diagrams to illustrate the structure and
behavior of the DDD example--a cargo shipping system--from Eric
Evans' book (Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart
of Software).
Author : takaakit
Score : 43 points
Date : 2025-04-18 19:40 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| ak_111 wrote:
| What happened to UML? I remember it was everywhere in enterprise
| computing 20 years ago but seems to have disappeared now.
|
| Is it still around or did it go the way of SOAP, Java Applets? If
| not, what has replaced it?
| zabzonk wrote:
| Just my opinion, but I think that folks realised it was not
| much use for initial design, but could work reasonably well for
| documentation of existing systems.
| devenson wrote:
| Documenting existing system dependencies using the product
| which which I'm a founder:
|
| https://schematix.com/video/depmap
|
| Like UML deployment diagrams, but our models are interactive
| and can be queried.
|
| We also have a large customer doing DDD modeling and then
| generating code directly from the models they build.
| riffraff wrote:
| UML as a methodology seems to have disappeared, but bits of it
| (e.g. sequence diagrams) seem to have been absorbed by the
| profession at large.
| ramon156 wrote:
| We still learned UML diagrams in school in 2019, though I have
| to say I haven't used it anywhere in my job
| neilv wrote:
| In the case of UML, I think enterprise consulting and tool
| sales might've already obscured much of the real value of
| semiformal methods, before a CS curriculum could sour
| students on it.
|
| With ZIRP growth scheme startups hopefully over, and more of
| us having to get jobs building systems that work reliably and
| sustainably, we might gain a new appreciation for system
| modeling.
| dcminter wrote:
| I'm kind of hazy about where the boundaries between bona fide
| UML and PlantUML are, but PlantUML is in pretty common use in
| my world - more for sequence diagrams and state diagrams than
| class diagrams though. Of course PlantUML has competition from
| things like Mermaid, but they're all much of a muchness.
|
| My very non-scientific impression is that tools like Rational
| were mostly used for drawing class diagrams and ... that just
| turned out not to be that useful because the tooling didn't
| exist to round-trip changes in the code back into the diagrams
| meaning the diagrams lost parity with the code rather quickly.
| It was sort of useful in the linear design/code/deliver world,
| but we're a lot more iterative now.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I just learned about UML earlier today when I wanted to bring
| in a mermaid flowchart into lucidchart. If you bring in
| mermaid using lucidchart, it makes it a raster image. But if
| you use UML markup, you can ungroup it and modify. I couldn't
| get a good way to convert from mermaid to UML markup that
| lucidchart could handle. Ended up a dead end for me.
| dcminter wrote:
| On a similar note I've had various annoyances with wanting
| to round trip diagrams from Mermaid or PlantUML into Miro
| and vice versa. There doesn't seem to be much out there to
| facilitate this, which is strange, because it feels like a
| very enterprisey thing to want to do.
|
| There's probably a SaaS product in it for someone
| sufficiently interested in the topic... probably not at
| unicorn scale, but enough for a side income perhaps?
| NBJack wrote:
| Just another data point that the "low code/no code" revolution
| sputtered out over a decade ago.
|
| I still see and use a small subset of UML for more complex
| architecture discussions, but that's about it (i.e. service
| nesting, message passing, etc.).
| whartung wrote:
| I think folks upgraded to GML [0]
|
| [0] https://wiki.c2.com/?GalacticModelingLanguage
| oleggromov wrote:
| This is wonderful. Thank you.
| icedchai wrote:
| I love it. Even with GML, you run into problems. Diagramming
| is an art more than a science. You have to know your audience
| (technical people, marketing types, investors, customers...)
|
| Leaving stuff out is also important. (Example: Unless you're
| building a DNS related product, don't bother to include "DNS"
| in your diagrams. Your use of it is assumed.)
| titaphraz wrote:
| UML was a scam really. They took a lot of very useful diagrams
| and created a absolute behemoth of unproven system to develop
| software and sold it.
|
| The diagrams are very nice and useful. But the UML as a
| process, if taken literally, it a total disaster.
| hmartin wrote:
| > UML was a scam really.
|
| Objectively and utterly wrong.
| neilv wrote:
| I used to work heavily in this kind of system modeling
| (developing tools for it, and dogfooding), and still use it when
| high-value for figuring out or communicating an aspect of a
| system.
|
| Here's a challenge, to help appreciate the nature of these: try
| to find an error in the diagrams.
|
| It's usually harder than you might think, since, even when you
| know the notation and metamodel semantics, it's information-dense
| talking about a domain.
|
| You usually have to know or learn a lot about the domain, and/or
| have an domain expert you can walk through it exhaustively,
| before you can find errors.
|
| And an error can be whopper: a single graph edge missing, or
| between the wrong vertices, or with the wrong adornments can have
| huge implications.
|
| For example, large amounts of work that have to be redone, or a
| project abandoned, or a mess that takes 10x longer than it should
| to write, and 10x the tech debt going forward with a bad
| architecture, or a fundamental security flaw.
|
| One of the mistakes many people make is treating formalized
| diagrams as "marketecture" visuals, like they only need for
| handwaving sales presentation slides, where there's some kind of
| visual for every concept they want to be able to literally point
| to.
|
| Nope, if you have software engineers and domain experts
| communicating and reasoning about your system in only the fuzzy
| terms of sales/exec presentations, you're really stabbing
| yourself in the face.
| karlgkk wrote:
| Apropos of nothing, all of the major ai models have gotten really
| good at turning a pdf or document into uml
|
| Not great, mind you. 80% of the way there still saves an hour of
| your time tho
| fuzzer371 wrote:
| How about we ditch the AI slop
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| It's useful to convey architectures. The problem is that UML has
| been abused by some vendors that implemented bad software based
| on "Rapid UML Development" and it soured a lot of developers.
| Also it is very old java OO oriented. But Sequence diagrams are
| still in use.
| dcminter wrote:
| OO yes, but not Java particularly. I was using Rational tools
| with C++ projects well before Java was getting any visibility.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| These diagrams make a lot of sense if you understand the symbols
| and the relationships plus aggregations. You can easily talk to
| them. I use these diagrams with non technical people all the time
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-18 23:00 UTC)