> From: Jeffrey Carter <[log in to unmask]> > I don't know if I'd go that far. UML is primarily a requirements > notation, and does not seem to me as well suited for design as for > requirements. It also has a lot of diagrams, each of which adds only > a little information. The reader has to understand each of those > many diagrams and integrate them in his head to understand the > system. I would much prefer a notation with fewer diagrams, each of > which conveys more information. UML is a bag (ragbag) of everyone's favourite techniques, apart from DFDs. None of the originators would have used all the diagrams, so there's no reason why you should either! As a simple for-instance, we never use component diagrams (because we allocate code to Ada packages using translation rules instead).