Ted Neward attacks UML. Or so he claims, when in fact what he is criticizing is actually reverse engineering.
Here is a very simple truth about modeling a software system: If your model is on the same level as your code, it’s not worth having. Reverse engineering, at least as long as nobody injects a severe amount of AI-like magic into it, is not worth the effort beyond a first migration step towards forward engineering, which is something that actually works.
Nevermind this quote of Ted’s …
But even so, I’ll still take a moment to point out what I think is a critical flaw in the UML modeling space: the lack of any sort of separation between the “physical model” and the “logical model”. […] Why is this so hard for the UML community to understand? Particularly given how infatuated they are with code-generation from the UML model (and vice versa).
… which shows such an ignorance towards both hype and reality about what’s going on in the UML/MDA space that it’s almost funny.