Disadvantages Of Software Reengineering
UML is a versatile visual language that is used to model a software system. The software industry has been divided in its opinion regarding the use of UML diagrams. While some see it as an integral part of software systems and development, there are a significant number of people that deem it completely unnecessary.In this post, we explore both sides of this argument (both advantages and disadvantages of UML) and attempt to understand software industry’s love-hate relationship with UML design diagrams.
Advantages of UMLMost-Used and FlexibleUML is a highly recognized and understood platform for software design. It is a standard notation among software developers. You can safely assume that most software professionals will be at least acquainted with, if not well-versed in, UML diagrams, thus making it the go-to alternative to explain software design models.What makes UML well-suited to and much-needed for software development is its flexibility. You can customize your modeling elements and interactions in a UML diagram specifically to suit the domain or technologies you are using.The Software Architecture Must Be Communicated EffectivelyThe software architecture is the blueprint of the system. It is the framework on which the efficiency of the system and its processes depend.
But, this framework is only effective if it is communicated properly to all those using it and working on it. This is where (UML) comes into the picture.UML is a rich and extensive language that can be used to model not just object-oriented software engineering, but application structure and behavior, and business processes too. Software players have agreed that we cannot do away with documentation of the architecture.
Software Reengineering Process
It is important. It helps in assessing performance, security, tracking, and provides important guidelines for the assignment under operation.Because of its wide reach, UML is the perfect visual language to communicate detailed information about the architecture to the largest number of users.You Need to Know Only a Fraction of the Language to Use ItThough there are for modeling applications, developers use only three or four to document a software system. Class diagrams, and use case diagrams remain the most in vogue.What this implies is that you need to know just 20% of the UML language to explain 80% of your modeling needs.
You do not need to know or comprehend the entire notation, to communicate effectively using UML diagrams. Knowing a subset of the notation equips you just fine.Abundance of UML ToolsUML tools are one of the most why UML is so widely used.
Purpose Of Software Reengineering
UML tools range from free open-source software to those costing millions of dollars. These tools cover much territory beyond just drawing diagrams. They can generate code from the design, apply design patterns, mine requirements, reverse engineer code, and perform impact and complexity analysis.These advantages and the abundance of itself make UML the go-to modeling and developmental language in the field of software engineering.Despite its myriad uses and benefits, UML is not preferred by all. In fact, a considerable section of software developers, don’t use UML and heap heavy criticism on the same.
Let’s look at the arguments against using UML. Disadvantages of UML: Reasoning against UMLFormal Notation is Not NecessaryThe strongest argument against UML is that you don’t really need a UML diagram to communicate your designs. You can have the same impact and effect with informal, box-and-line diagrams created in PowerPoint, Visio, or a whiteboard. As coding is a formal language by itself, a lot of developers don’t prefer the complexity and the formality at the architectural level, which discourages the use of UML and has become one of its disadvantages.Ascending Degree of ComplexitySince its initiation until now, UML has grown in complexity and size. The sheer size of UML makes a lot of people nervous right at the onset, and they feel like they won’t be able to learn it, and are better off without it.Not Necessary in ‘Architecture-Indifferent Design’A term coined by is a situation where UML is considered unnecessary.At its core, an architecture-indifferent design refers to a software architecture that is simple and basic, and does not need any complex diagrams to represent or explain the design. If the firms lay more emphasis on formal coding, and there is a prevalent culture of minimal design documentation, UML is regarded unnecessary.
Deciphering This Love-Hate Relationship:While there is much talk about the redundancy of UML in the software industry, it cannot be denied that hitherto, there is no holistic or appropriate substitute for UML. To receive an unbiased perspective on the significance and fate of UML, we spoke to hardware giants who are closely in touch with the software industry, but neutral in their perspective.“Absence of design documentation is fine in the short-run, but it can become a problem in the long run when you need to communicate the design to a developer who is in another country, or someone who will be joining the team six months later.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by.Closed 2 years ago.There are probably different kinds of code generation. In RoR for example, Rails can create skeletons for models, controllers, etc. But the developer has to complete those skeletons.Now some times there are projects where many core artifacts in their entirety get generated according to a set of definitions or models.I am mainly interested to know the advantages and disadvantages of this latter type of code generation. The main advantage is that it does the work for you, its repeatable, and that the code will most likely work (that depends of course if the person who wrote the generator knew what they were doing). It can remove the a lot of necessary time doing menial coding tasks.
For example, is it really worth your time to write objects which are nothing more than containers for data from the database, or is it better to have some program automatically create these for you?The big disadvantage is that it forces you into writing the code that is compatible with the generated code. Most of the time this isn't a problem, but it can be a real hassle when someone comes up to you and says 'Hey, can we do X?'
And that conflicts with the generated code. If the generator is good, it will allow you to change functionality, but that almost always increases the complexity of the code generated etc.
This complexity has a price. It's more difficult to understand, and it can be less efficient that code you write yourself. This of course varies by situation. The main problem with this style of programming is that it contaminates a view of your project. It no longer allows you to practice DRY. It is useful to have a clean separation between that what is automatically generated, and that which is written by a human. Most systems, especially file-based ones, do not support such a separation well.
In systems that have good introspection capabilities (e.g. Smalltalk images), building a dynamic object structure by walking the definition/model is preferable.In illusion-based programming (as practiced in large companies and government agencies) it is very useful because it allows the generation of very impressive stacks of documentation and show impressive implementation performance as measured in lines of code per man month. There your most important skill is of course timing your disappearance act.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is WHY you want to generate source code. Is it, for instance, because you are more fluent with UML than any programming language and hence want to generate object-oriented classes from that graphical model?Is it because you expressed a schema definition in any language ( SQL DDL for example:, XSD for example ) and want to generate a model from that?The advantage of code generation is always the fact that you express something only once (as in, like stated). This is a very good practice that made it deep into (among other processes). When you keep things DRY, you will not run the risk that the model differs from its glue code. On the other hand, you might blow up your glue code because it will exactly match its underlying model. Typically, you have one class/type/object per RDMBS table or per XML element.If, however, you use code generation because you're more at ease with a modelling language (as in ), you might run the risk that your generated code is not good enough (lack of detail) or too complicated (lack of simplicity) because - for instance - UML is not suited for solving problems in detail.In any case: code generation can be very helpful if the generated code can be used AS-IS and does not need any customisation.
As soon as you start customising generated code, it may become a maintenance nightmare.