When will Microsoft Sew their Nose Back On???
A few years ago Microsoft decided to cut off its nose to spite its face. The war on UML started with the DSL movement. Although Microsoft still claimed to see UML as an essential tool, they stopped trying to compete with the rest of the market and tried to lead us down a new path that did not include UML.
With Rosario around the corner (a very big corner) the emphases is on Application Life-cycle Management (ALM). I think that is great. But the claim that their DSL tools will support the essential design documents is once again WRONG!!!! The DSL tools currently supported are the ones they are going to depend on again in the future.
Over the past 2 years I have had the VSTS Architecture version installed and I have not used the DSL tools once on a project. I have looked at them several times, but I always found SPARX Enterprise Architect (EA) easier to use to make meaningful artifacts. Microsoft did try to save a little face by saying they do support and suggest UML for domain modeling. But there suggestion was to model in Visio (UML 1.2 or 1.4??), forward engineer the model to code and then open it up in their DSL class modeler. That is just plain dumb when tools like Enterprise Architect exist. Yes, Microsoft is partnering with SPARX now, but the ALM movement just confuses things because it introduces tools that step all over SPARX EA tools that support ALM, except for UML. Go figure.?.?.?
I am currently in the process of deciding on what process repository to use. I have a hard time going with Rational Unified Process (RUP) because I do not like that it is so IBM centric now. Over the years it has become tied to the IBM tools. I said my farewell to Rational some time ago. There is nothing wrong with it being tied to IBM tools since they own it, but the projects I am helping engineer their process can’t afford the IBM suite. That means part of the tailoring will need to include integrating a new toolset to accomplish activities.
EssUP is a joke. Nothing but marketing blather and pretty cards has come out of that team. The MSF process guidance is not tailorable. It is ok stuff if you can use it out of the box.
So I am learning towards the Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Composer. It is the IBM Rational Method Composer without all the IBM strings attached.
So if I go with EPF, what toolset will I included for accomplishing activities? There is about a 99.9% chance SPARX EA will make the cut as the main artifact generation tool. With tools like SPARX EA, the days of static templates are over and using the term living document actually can mean something.
Microsoft’s ALM push will probably be good for project managers, but Microsoft still does not get that they are continuing to ignore the architect.
_
With Rosario around the corner (a very big corner) the emphases is on Application Life-cycle Management (ALM). I think that is great. But the claim that their DSL tools will support the essential design documents is once again WRONG!!!! The DSL tools currently supported are the ones they are going to depend on again in the future.
Over the past 2 years I have had the VSTS Architecture version installed and I have not used the DSL tools once on a project. I have looked at them several times, but I always found SPARX Enterprise Architect (EA) easier to use to make meaningful artifacts. Microsoft did try to save a little face by saying they do support and suggest UML for domain modeling. But there suggestion was to model in Visio (UML 1.2 or 1.4??), forward engineer the model to code and then open it up in their DSL class modeler. That is just plain dumb when tools like Enterprise Architect exist. Yes, Microsoft is partnering with SPARX now, but the ALM movement just confuses things because it introduces tools that step all over SPARX EA tools that support ALM, except for UML. Go figure.?.?.?
I am currently in the process of deciding on what process repository to use. I have a hard time going with Rational Unified Process (RUP) because I do not like that it is so IBM centric now. Over the years it has become tied to the IBM tools. I said my farewell to Rational some time ago. There is nothing wrong with it being tied to IBM tools since they own it, but the projects I am helping engineer their process can’t afford the IBM suite. That means part of the tailoring will need to include integrating a new toolset to accomplish activities.
EssUP is a joke. Nothing but marketing blather and pretty cards has come out of that team. The MSF process guidance is not tailorable. It is ok stuff if you can use it out of the box.
So I am learning towards the Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Composer. It is the IBM Rational Method Composer without all the IBM strings attached.
So if I go with EPF, what toolset will I included for accomplishing activities? There is about a 99.9% chance SPARX EA will make the cut as the main artifact generation tool. With tools like SPARX EA, the days of static templates are over and using the term living document actually can mean something.
Microsoft’s ALM push will probably be good for project managers, but Microsoft still does not get that they are continuing to ignore the architect.
_
posted by tadanderson at 8:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home