Why we chose not to use D for our Linux project

[BCS]

Reply to Chris,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Chris,
>> 
>>> UML class diagrams and UML sequence diagrams are not design; they
>>> are programming. Programming in a language with no compiler,
>>> programming without including your core algorithms, programming
>>> without any tests. There's no way in hell you can verify your design
>>> will be even remotely close to something that can work.
>>> 
>>> You can safely and usefully design at a higher level before writing
>>> any code, but not on the class level.
>>> 
>> I beg to differ. The one and only time I used UML it was very useful.
>> It helped me track a number of aspects of the design and brought to
>> light a number of deficiencies. I'd say UML is a design "tool" but in
>> the way that Word or a pad of paper can be, as an aid to
>> documentation.
>> 
> You were using UML class diagrams. Were you generating code from UML,
> or UML from code?
> 

Not yet. The project the design was for got back burnered so no actual code 
has been written yet.

Aside: I've though it might be interesting to do a mid size project where 
the only people allowed to touch the actual code are interns. The "real" 
programmers are only allowed to work on the spec and design. But they are 
allowed to design to the point their there really isn't anything left that 
a C average CS sophomore couldn't handle.

> If you want to use UML to document existing code, that has always
> sounded like a good idea to me. You don't have to wade through code
> and comments to get an idea of what's going on. But in this case, you
> MUST use UML that's autogenerated from your code. Otherwise, your UML
> documentation will branch away from your code.
> 

The other option is to fully generate the code from the UML. Either way one 
is golden and the other is generated.