×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Donates Parts of Rational to Open Source

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the swiss-army-knife-of-dreams dept.

IBM 168

slashbob22 writes "IBM has decided to contribute portions of the Rational Unified Process to the Eclipse Foundation. From the article: 'RUP is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects. IBM's donation will also provide a foundation architecture and Web-based tools for the industry to engineer, collaborate on, share and reuse software development best practices.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

heh (4, Funny)

Ooblek (544753) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777108)

If you can't sell it....DONATE IT!!!

Don't be offensive buddy (2, Insightful)

Work Account (900793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777152)

Opera is the best browser out there and has been for years, but no one was buying it so they first gave free coupons away for it here on Slashdot a couple months back. Then they enjoyed the press so figured let's just give it away for free with no ads.

Granted, Firefox is excellent but Opera has been amazing for at least half a decade and is useable on everything from PCs to cell telephones.

Opera isn't so great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777255)

Granted, Firefox is excellent but Opera has been amazing for at least half a decade and is useable on everything from PCs to cell telephones.

Opera isn't so great. I bought a copy, and it wouldn't display hotmail pages correctly. I could view messages, but I couldn't empty my junk mail folder; the javascript was somehow broken on it. I could only delete my mail about half of the time; seemingly at random.

I gave up fighting with it, and moved back to Windows and IE. Yes, hotmail sucks, but it's at least reachable when my computer breaks.

My unix account was totally unreachable when my last monitor blew out, and I was forced to rely on the terminals at the public library. Hotmail is reachable just about anywhere, and you don't need to install special software on other people's computers to use it.

Re:Opera isn't so great... (1)

acebone (94535) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778287)

IIRC Hotmail at one point had a stylesheet targeted for Opera, that would brake Opera's rendition of Hotmail. Opera had a page on their website where they showed that, if Opera spoofed itself as IE, there were no probs, but if it identified itself correctly, Hotmail would break.

> I gave up fighting with it, and moved back to Windows and IE. Yes, hotmail sucks, but it's at least reachable when my computer breaks

Eh..., How do you reach Hotmail with a broken computer ?

> Hotmail is reachable just about anywhere, and you don't need to install special software on other people's computers to use it.

Cool - that's why Hotmail in IE on Win rules then ? I hear the next big thing is the Internet, but who knows ?

Re:Don't be offensive buddy (2, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777332)

Then they enjoyed the press so figured let's just give it away for free with no ads.

I hear they're planning to use volume to make a profit.

Re:Don't be offensive buddy (1)

molnarcs (675885) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777383)

I hear they're planning to use volume to make a profit.

How do you do that? I tried using the volume here, but I didntt notice any positive effect on my income (but at least my neighbours are pissed).

Re:Don't be offensive buddy (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777602)

It's like the old Amazon.com business model, "We're losing $0.50 on every sale, but we'll make it up in volume...."

Re:heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777168)

Yes, but, is there anybody out there that would willingly use Rational? If there is, I'm sure we can find a medication for them.

Re:heh (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777421)

Actually I rather like Rational Clearquest.

Re:heh (1)

Axe (11122) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778424)

There must be some cure available by now.

I will murder any person who would suggest to use Rational process tools for any project that I participate in (other then their profiler, though it is also ugly).

Irrational (4, Funny)

yintercept (517362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777424)

Giving away half a product away may not seem rational, but it is shrewd. You have the engine, would you like to buy the key.

As for for the decision to give half the product away, I understand IBM was thinking of giving away the square root of the product away ... Now, THAT would have been irrational.

ahhhh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777124)

hehe first post!! woot woot. does IBM make a C++ IDE?

Processes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777132)

Are for the weak.

Re:Processes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777364)

It's no wonder that there are so many people posting as ACs on Slashdot. Any post that's halfway interesting, funny, or deviates from the "Linux is great, corporations suck" mentality gets modded as Troll. I have my preferences set to give trolls a "+1" modifier since at least they're usually entertaining. Not the boring tired-old BS that usually goes on around here.

Half the posts that are modded "funny" are just idiotic. This guy posts something that IS funny and it's a troll.

This is VERY GOOD news (2, Interesting)

Work Account (900793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777137)

I've used Rational(tm) before and thought it was great at what it claimed to do. Much like UNIX(tm) and GNU/Linux(tm) applications, it did one thing and it did it well.

Now, combining Rational with Eclipse(tm) should make the latter even better!

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777156)

Rational what? They're a company... they make several products.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (2, Informative)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777264)

Actually they're part of IBM now .. and their flagship product (Rational XDE) was taken off the market by IBM for whatever reason. This move on IBM's part restores some of the functionality to the market, but not all of it. In particular the UMLcode pieces are still missing.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778277)

Well yeah. You'd hope that they'd at least buy out companies before donating their technology all willy-nilly. :D

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777162)

You DO know that this is about the "Rational Unified Process" and NOT Rational Rose, right? RUP is the development process that Rational tries to sell you on when you sell you the Rose UML tool. If you buy into RUP, they can manage to send you tons of consultants and sell you even more costly software.

RUP is a step up from the Waterfall model, but it's certainly not the greatest thing out there.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (3, Funny)

cadams500 (922437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777387)

RUP is a step up from the Waterfall model, but it's certainly not the greatest thing out there.

It's obvious you have a limited view on what the RUP process is... RUP is in the Agile category of develpment processes and can be tailored from basically no ceremony (design documents, traceability, etc.) to high-levels of ceremony. The problem with RUP is that it's been heavily used in the Government sector, which historically has been at the far-right on the ceremony scale; many people have a vast misconception that RUP is "just a step-up" from the waterfall model. When in fact, RUP is not even in the same category as the Waterfall model.

I believe IBM releasing the RUP standards to the Eclipse project is going to go a lot of good in getting RUPs current "label" turned around from being just a "modified waterfall" method, to being known as a full-blown Agile method.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (0, Offtopic)

pcnetworx1 (873075) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777920)

Quote: It's obvious you have a limited view on what the RUP process is...

It's obvious you are a freakin manager judging by the level of buzzwords in that damn post. My BuzzWordMeter was peggin up in the freaking RED! And if you continue that paragraph, its gonna go up to the "BS Critical Dump" level!

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

cadams500 (922437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778069)

It's obvious you are a freakin manager judging by the level of buzzwords

Nope.

judging by the level of buzzwords in that damn post
Buzzwords. Oh, you mean like: Agile, Waterfall, Ceremony, Government and RUP? The only "buzz" word in that list is Agile. But, your post has made my point extremely clear; most developers have no concept, nor do they care, about good software development methods and anybody who does is immediately pegged as a manager who has no idea how to develop software.

Let me ask you: How would you propose talking about "Software Process" without using your so-called, "buzzwords?"

This is VERY decisive news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13778407)

"Let me ask you: How would you propose talking about "Software Process" without using your so-called, "buzzwords?""

Maybe by starting with the consequences [slashdot.org] of their decisions [slashdot.org].

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

hvatum (592775) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777420)

I have been examining the Rational Unified Process (RUP) quite intensly, and
I have to agree.

Firstly, let me say that since 10,000 organisations out there use the thing, it would seem that it is I that is missing something, hence my frustration.

How come, in the entire Rational Unified Process, no-one actually codes the software?

I mean it has been analysed and designed, and documented, and modelled, and designed again until no stone is left unturned, and BAM! suddenly we are implmenting software? Am I the only guy who thinks this is too good to be true? Nowhere in the Rational Unified Process can I find any diagram, reference to, or project plan, about the "Build" or "Code" stage. Yes, I know there is a "Construct phase" but nothing inside it actually talks about putting hands on keyboard and coding.

Perhaps the great Slashdot groupthink machine can explain this? Is this where the expensive consultants dash in to save the day?

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (2, Funny)

crt (44106) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777629)

That's because the code stage is handled in India.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777908)

Check out any textbook on software development. For that matter, check a thesaurus. "Build" and "Construct" are the same thing. "Code" is actually a commonly accepted slang term for "writing computer code," and not proper to use in such a formal document.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

bdcrazy (817679) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778027)

If i remember right A lot of the Rational Unified Process can be made into code by the press of a button. I know at least that most of a uml diagram can be directly processed to code by the computer.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778140)

Not true. Only class diagrams can generate usable class skeletons. Every other diagram in RUP is not automatically convertible to code making RUP an excellent choice for consultants as it removes any traces of accountability for the final product. And that is the ultimate goal of RUP. Make the RUP consultants stock up on billable hours while absolving them of any responsibility for the actual working product.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777434)

I'd say Rational Rose is what they sell you when you buy into RUP, not the other way around. "Like our process? Buy the matching software suite!" And don't forget Websphere Developer, only $2650 per seat. Nevermind it's based on Eclipse which is free and better maintained.

I've heard rumor that my current client paid about $500,000 for Rational kool-aid. A lot of good it does them too. Most of the packages are real albatrosses! Gigantic, unweildly, and obstructive. We basically just use ClearCase and ClearQuest for the equivalent of what you could do with Subversion and Bugzilla. I can't find one person in this company that uses these tools because it makes them more effective.

Yes, RUP is a step up from waterfall. But for most companies that "implement" RUP it's waterfall by another name. Anyone who's smart enough to use RUP properly probably isn't using RUP because they know there's something better [agilealliance.org].

And yes, IBM will be sending us their "consultants" [kuro5hin.org] for the next "iteration" of development.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777173)

Correction: it will be a Good Thing(tm)

Not really (2, Informative)

fprog (552772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777268)

Well, maybe, but IBM Rational Rose XP is worst usability wise
then the old Rational Rose.

Also, if Rational Rose XP is a plug-in for Eclipse, but Rose is 30x the size of eclipse...
which one is really the plug-in?

And why do you need Eclipse?!
I think it was just a fast way for them to bloat up Eclipse,
and reuse existing Eclipse parts to recrate Rational Rose XP.

It crash less often than the old, but it eats way more memory.

For instance, you cannot create some non-implementation abstract specification scenario diagrams with ease, it force you to create "implementation classes", especially when you have to dupe the classes to remove some "not meaningful" associations, instead of having a "hide association" boolean config.

It also add some freaking slash: /action/(/a/,/b/)
instead of just action(a,b) for scenarios.

Some configuration settings are no more available.
Changing colors/font of some items is no more possible in some cases.

Coordinates on infinite planes are just weird...

If you prefered to have text below the use case that's no more possible,
which sometimes makes use cases diagrams looks odds
with some having large and other small ovals or having
to put a large ovals on everything just to make it similar,
reducing the amount of stuff you can fit on a page.

It force you to include association to be displayed,
even though it is "not meaningful" in the current displayed context.
Especially, if you try to create a higher abstraction view.

The cool class diagrams private/protected/public icons
are no more replaced with boring text symbols.

It force you to use some "templates" and completely ignores
"what you actually want to do". Also, it display all
unmeaningful icons on the left using a non intuitive
hide/show menu and then prohibits you to use them,
instead of having a simple toolbar like in the old
to draw your diagram and remove non-usable one.

Basically, give me back a bug-fixed Rational Rose (non-XP) app.

Don't plagiarize buddy (3, Interesting)

Work Account (900793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777429)

Look at the 80 character line lengths in the parent post and thus the premature line breaks.

You obviously copy+pasted this post from somewhere, which isn't cool to do unless you properly attribute it.

Re:Don't plagiarize buddy (1)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777932)

Furthermore, in his haste to post a comment, he neglected to note that TFA is talking about a process, not a product, as noted in several comments above.

Re:Not really (1)

flibuste (523578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778308)

It's a great post. You sum up all the reasons why IBM would actually donate RUP: make sure everyone can use it - and if needed be, have anyone contribute to the code at their liking. You can now yourself fix all the little worries you have listed.

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777272)

Rational Unified Process + Eclipse = RUPE
Or is there more fill in the blank to come?
Rational Unified Process T______ U______ R______ Eclipse

Re:This is VERY GOOD news (1)

kevinwal (883356) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777303)

From TFA:

"RUP is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects.

Yawn. Books and stuff.

Hard to Understand (3, Interesting)

someguy456 (607900) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777145)

As an intern at IBM this summer, I found that some of the regulars themselves didn't know what RUP was. In particular, some claimed it was simply a process to follow, some linked it with a special program, others claimed complete ignorance, and others simply waved it off as labeling the pre-existing procedures. I still wonder what RUP is all about...

OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my friend (4, Interesting)

Work Account (900793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777179)

Look, we are and I'll admit that. I'm not afraid to criticize myself and other developers:

- Me and other coders are often eager to jump right into projects instead of designing them thoroughly (using RUP for example)
- Other coders and I often get bored after I figure out the hard part and say the rest is trivial

It's more of a work ethic. Also, my friends in the gaming industry (Electronic Arts(tm) for example) work 60-80 hour weeks, so it's understandable that they seek out shortcuts.

Let's agree to work a little harder and/or smarter and not skimp on design! USE RATIONAL!

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (5, Insightful)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777351)

First, I have personally used the RUP successfully. The success was in spite of the process, not because of it. The excellent people I had on my team made the work a success, and not a paperwork-on-rails approach to software development.

On the upside, the RUP is geared toward control of iterative projects. On the downside, it treats every diagram you draw as though it were as valuable as the working software you really intend to produce. It also adds artificial divisions between roles in the process (the architect sends X to the analyst who elaborates it and sends it on to the developer who extrudes Y...). It tends to reduce communication among team members, and between team members and stakeholders. It's original intent seems to have been to give all the diagrams in the UML a reason for being (and by extension, Rose).

Show me a failing unit test and I'll show you a low-level design awaiting implementation. Running code trumps "managed artifacts" any day.

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (2, Informative)

steve_l (109732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777458)

yeah, unit tests kick RUPs overbloated process into the wilderness

I cannot get over the idea that OSS projects have been suffering from a lack of the RUP. We have been making do with distributed SCM, email and wiki collaboration, bugzilla, xUnit testing and plaintext artifacts. Oh, and well documented code.

Now that we have the RUP, we can stop all that and do fancy UML pictures showing how use cases are implemented instead. I am so overjoyed,.

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777500)

...and between team members and stakeholders.
Dude, you said "my team" and "stakeholder." Throw in some stuff about "Core Values" and "takeaways" and we'll know you're a manager.

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (4, Insightful)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777993)

While what I understand of RUP is that it tends to go overboard with extreme implementation of basic ideas, the root of their labor division is in the excellent practice of not allowing one coder to push his code changes all the way through to distribution without some amount of validation by another set of eyes.

I'm part of the enterprise change control staff at my company, and I can tell you that the more tightly we implement controls, the more often we discover that the problems that arise are from developers implementing untested changes without authorization. If you force them to submit change documents, and don't let the changes get into the code base until the change has been authorized (for that matter, don't let them code until the change has been authorized), then have someone else test the changed software before the code gets pushed up, you've got a three-legged stool to stand on, and you have an auditable process that maintains accountability.

I bet if you look at the submission process of any successful open source project, you'll find the same constructs, maybe just not called out so formally. The basic ideas aren't bad, just some implementations. RUP gives you a framework to design your procedures with.

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778143)

Running code trumps "managed artifacts" any day.

Unless that running code happens to be on Mars, and is not quite running as expected. Then those managed artifacts become very useful.

Re:OK OK I'll admit it -- coders are LAZY my frien (1)

thehickcoder (620326) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777748)

To quote Larry Wall, "the three great virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience and Hubris".

Re:Hard to Understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777220)

At its core, RUP is a business process intended to replace the "Waterfall" model of development. The catch 22 is that Rational has all kinds of wonderful (read: expensive) tools and consultants to help you make the most of your choice in the RUP process. All you need is $3,000,000 in software tools to support your endevor and 75 highly paid consultants, then you too can start saving money on a more efficient development process!

*cough*

There's nothing to understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777570)

That's because RUP is anything you want it to be. When cornered, they call it a "process framework" rather than a process, but all that means is you are right no matter what you do. Waterfall? Extreme Programming? They are all flavors of RUP.

Depends on the "Subset" (3, Informative)

Deinhard (644412) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777147)

I've been a RUP user/proponent for several years. This may be, as the article alludes, a shot in the arm for improved processes. However, it remains to be seen just what the "subset" of RUP entails. RUP can be an unwieldy process that, if used in the (lowercase "e") extreme, make development slower and more "process-laden."

However, from what I've seen lately out of some shops that are using more "modern" approaches (and failing miserably) this could be welcome relief.

The Rational Unified Process is excelent (4, Insightful)

ElMiguel (117685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777161)

That's why Rational Rose is such an efficient, consistent, bug-free software.
</sarcasm>

I don't know about other people's experiences, but some of the worst pieces of software I've ever used have been CASE tools (you know the type: UML, lifecycle, etc). Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777189)

That's because they are designed and coded by architect types who love java and uml (aka dumbasses) 18 months of planning/3 months coding where 3 == 24.

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (4, Insightful)

arudloff (564805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777191)

Kinds of make you question the usefulness of those tools and processes.

If your relying on the tools, then your probably missing the point of the process. Tools can aid you in the process, but a process doesn't require tools (not even a commercial 'product' like RUP).

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777208)

jajaja, and how are you supposed to do "round-trip engineering" without tools?.

it's all about the tools.

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777845)

using a pen and paper.
UML Tools are timesavers, not enablers.
And UML is _far_ more than class diagrams and round tripping.

In fact, that's the _least_ most useful feature of a UML tool - it always bugs me when I find a UML tool that goes on about how it can do code generation and round tripping, but you can't create a sequence diagram with it. What's the point?

The real value in a UML tool is understanding the model, validating your diagrams and checking for consistency. Code generation is pretty useless, and round tripping is whilst nice, not essential.

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13778292)

I do believe that he is pointing out the irony that those trying to sell RUP as a process for creating quality software cannot themselves create quality software.

Re:The Rational Unified Process is excelent (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777413)

I have no clue what sort of organization would benefit from RUP. It's a top heavy, brittle process with very little room for customers' "changing their mind" which of course is notorious in most software development scenarios, making RUP the most stifling, overweight, expensive way to develop software I can think of.

It does require an army of "Architects" in various "Roles" so obviously Accenture con$ultants love it to no end.

I'm willing to bet any money that RUP sunk more development projects than it saved.

+6 insightful if you will (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777423)

It took me 20 minutes to save my first CASE tool work, I couldn't figure out how to save!

The only 'practice what it preaches' tool I have used is DENIM from phys.cam.ac.uk - it is a joy to use and learn, a little complex but very expert, and improving. Also try DASHER a fun little alternative input device that I just love to use.

A wise programmer once told me, on a subject of methodologies, extreme programming, UML and other design practices and work ideals:

There is no substitute for writing good code, concentrating, thinking, reading code and testing the code thoroughly in your head, understanding it as fully as possible. And at the same time knowing that although this is far from infallible, there is no substitute for it.

I dropped my fancy pants eclipse 'plugged to the nines' IDE, I dropped my newly adopted, CVS commit report friendly unit testing, over documented code, lengthy cvs commit notices and hyper-refactoring for:

emacs editor (which sucks, but I like mouse independance). Clear thought out design (my approach, not emacs), well established pattern, talking to my co workers about WHICH problem to solve, not how best to implement THIS fix to THIS problem (an outlook that changes the structure of how you write). I write more like a novelist now, making sure all the characters behave, the story sticks, and I never have that stomach churning 'oh I have to patch this bit, or add this method here, or reuse that bit there' feeling.

This is not an endorsement for emacs, which is the typist equivilent of tap dancing on a mine field after 10 shots of flaming absinthe. It does the job, and lets say it keeps you sharp (it also punishes any mistake, and whim to use copy paste, so in that respect it gives you pause for thought).

This 'clear thought, focus, concentrate and follow simple tenants of patterns and expected code conventions scales well, and transcendes language, environment and platform. It is not a 'lightweight' methodology, short cut or streamlined approach though, not by far!

So a sway from continuous evaluation, and hand holding unit tests to better planning, and more meticulous clear headed implementation (and writing in a way to maximize the chance of compiler time errors, and minimize the chance of runtime errors... compiler error good, runtime error bad)

The only bugs I see are ones that were in my original design, that is, my original thought was bad, or I translated it bad, but in a way that is clear from my development, that self documents almost every important condition statement with calls to private methods that add a sort of meta data to the blocks of code, and make it read like a story, and quickly allows you to 'sign off' on smaller chunks of code that you can handle in your head and say 'yes this works for all conditions (that is, you know it checks all null type, ranges and possible error conditions in those short 10 lines).

Re:+6 insightful if you will (1)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777580)

I dropped my fancy pants eclipse 'plugged to the nines' IDE

You can use as much or as little of a tool as you want.

I use Ecplise because it removes the druggery of typing in get/set methods. Type in your class attributes, right click on one, choose Source/Generate Getter/Setters, click on the ones you want generated, and tens of lines of code are created for you, including JavaDoc and comments if you so wish.

Not to mention auto-completion for class names, variable names, method names. By having auto-complete, you tend to create longer names, which improved code readability. I have smart code templates for several 'for' constructs (Iterator, Map Sets, arrays, etc). Type in for, and you get a list of these templates. Choose one, hit enter, and the construct is placed into the code, the cursor is placed into the first 'smart' replacement variable position. As you type, everywhere else that that variable exists in the template, your typing is echoed. Tab, and you are at the next smart replacement.

If I had to type in each and every character, I would quit.

Re:+6 insightful if you will (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13778195)

Regarding your sig... a big part of my work is to develop the BNF code for my company. Does that mean I'm not a programmer ;-)

Re:+6 insightful if you will (4, Insightful)

Taladar (717494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778328)

Did it ever occur to you that a language that needs auto-generated code is fundamentally flawed (too low-level)?

Huh? (3, Interesting)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777184)

IBM is "donating" the methods of RUP to open source projects? I thought IBM liked open source?

As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory, but goes all pear-shaped when real human beings get involved. Pull the UML out of RUP and leave it at that--the rest is madness, enobling "process" over productivity.

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

arudloff (564805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777277)

People try to make RUP into more than it is. The idea is to take and leave what works for your organization, and build a loose process around it. It's a framework for generating your own applicable process, and all too often companies want to do everything that RUP tells them to do (ignorning the fact that RUP tells you not to do everything..)

What really needs to be taken from RUP is the idea that an iterative approach reduces risk of failure. The concept of "roles" is helpful, but thats just basic teamwork.

Re:Huh? (1)

MSBob (307239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777451)

Rubbish. All the RUP "consultants" I talked to, when I challenged the unusually high failure rate of their proce$$, claimed that the problems lie in people not adhering to RUP in its entirety and only adopting pieces of it. I've yet to meet a RUP "expert" who recommends something lightweight or tailored to the development team's specifics. No, it's always the other way round, it's the lowly engineers and the only marginally less lowly architects who are supposed to obey The Process. And don't they ever dare question or ignore any piece of paper, no matter how spurious, if it's mandated by The Process.

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777367)

They didn't do this because they thought the open-source community needs or deserves Rational, they did it because a lot of US Government Agencies require Rational procedures (Or at least write documentation claiming they will) for any project with a budget above a few million dollars. IMHO, IBM did this to put a positive spin on OSS in the minds of those important people, since there are still a lot of them that assume OSS is crappy shareware, a communist plot, etc..

Re:Huh? (1)

0WaitState (231806) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777450)

Now that is genuinely interesting. I hadn't thought of the need to apply "certificates of standards compliance" to open source projects, and didn't know RUP had its hooks into US gov procurements. Are there also requirements for CMM or (gawdhelpus) ISO9000 certs?

Re:Huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777481)

As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory, but goes all pear-shaped when real human beings get involved.


ALso kind of like capitalism. See ENRON.

Re:Huh? (2, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777547)

"As far as RUP goes, it's kind of like communism. Looks good in theory..."

Actually, communism looks awful in theory if you understand a little bit what that theory means.

Re:Huh? (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777600)


Actually, communism looks awful in theory if you understand a little bit what that theory means.


Actually Soviet Communism looks an aweful lot like Feudalism in theory if you actually read Marx. Of course Soviet Communism existed because someone lacked a sense of humor.

Back in Marx's day, one of the Russian revolutionaries (pre-Lenin, I think) asked Marx about the fact that one would conclude from reading Marx's Das Kapital and other writings that it would take several hundred years to create a Marxian communism in Russia. Marx retorted with a joke along the lines of "In general that is true but in your specific case, I think you can make the change in about 17 months." Unfortunately, it seems that from that comment Soviet Communism was born.

RUP might be helpful. And Process is as important as Productivity. But the idea is to design your processes first and then mold the tools to fit, rather than try to mold your business to your tools. RUP fails because people put the cart before the horse.

Rational Software (1)

Saiyaman (859809) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777218)

I know that the company "Rational Software" was bought by IBM a year or so ago, as my mom works for Rational. But does this software suite have to do with the Rational Software company?

Re:Rational Software (1)

steve_l (109732) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777515)

Yes, Rational Software used to sell

ClearCase: the SCM system of wonder and fear.
ClearQuest: defect tracking app from hell.
RatRose: UML design app -very pricy, awful quality
Rational Unified Process: a design methodology that used the apps.

There are some aspects of the RUP; a little design is a good thing. But a good test suite is better than an overdesigned app, IMO.

Re:Rational Software (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777975)

Young man! you should talk to your mother more often

Open Source - Oh My Gawd! (3, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777260)

is a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects.

OMG! Now Microsoft will be able to use it and write good products.

[[SLAP]]

Oh, never mind. Everyone knows MS would never be caught dead touching anything OSS.

Two best practices for security (2, Funny)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777304)

1. Thou shalt check thy inputs for malformity

2. Thou shalt not let thy buffers overflow.

I hope those are in the Rational Unified Process (perhaps the construction phase of RUP).

Re:Two best practices for security (2, Insightful)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777560)

1. Thou shalt check thy inputs for malformity

2. Thou shalt not let thy buffers overflow.

I hope those are in the Rational Unified Process (perhaps the construction phase of RUP).


If that is your method for preventing security problems, I will *never* use your software.

Security starts with the following best practices:

1) Thou shalt write modular software
1a) Each module shall not run with more priveleges than absolutely necessary
2) Thou shalt rely on platform permissions enforcement wherever possible.

Then we can get to buffer overrun prevention. But if you don't try to manage the possibility before you get there you are lost at the beginning.

Comments on RUP/RUPP (2, Insightful)

vectorian798 (792613) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777460)

I don't know too much about RUP (read here [wikipedia.org]) but here is what I do know. With RUP comes the RUPP, a set of RUP Products that are meant to facilitate the development process that RUP is supposed to be all about.

However, some of IBM's products that are part of RUPP are shit. Rational Software Architect (the 'visual modeling' part of the RUP process) is the most bloated piece of crap I have ever used. It is unintuitive, a massive memory hog, slow, and overall just a bad piece of software. About the only thing it gets right is that it is UML 2.0 compliant and has all the different models...but I have found that there are many cheaper UML modelers that are better.

Heh in a way it is just like Eclipse (which is what RSA runs on top of) - too much crap that is inaccessible. The trend in software for a while has been adding new features that people don't know about. I believe MS had the same issue with Office in a survey they conducted, where they asked people what features they wanted to see in Office and 95% of the features were already there, but people didn't know about it. For every feature added for functionality, there should be two more added for usability!

Similarly, for a programming process/paradigm to take hold, developers need to be provided with (process-related) tools that are lightweight and approachable. A process that is too rigid, too heavy-weight, etc. will never be adopted - worse yet, some team will start using that process then slowly become lazy and soon they will be in a middleground of incomplete requirements, specifications, design docs, etc.

Re:Comments on RUP/RUPP (2, Interesting)

Evangelion (2145) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777758)


I use Rose at work, and I find it to be fine to work with -- all I'm trying to do is create a few diagrams, and it makes it relatively easy (relative to Visio) to piece together a class or use case diagram with as little work as possible.

It's bloated, but as long as your company furnishes you with decent hardware to run it on, that's hardly an issue.

It needs some work on exporting the diagrams to a useful format (a vector-based diagram export, such as SVG or eps, would be a nice addition) but in general it does a good job of... doing whatever it is it does.

I can't comment on using it as part of the entire RUP, as we just use it for diagrams.

Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but... (3, Insightful)

lenmaster (598077) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777510)

What exactly does it mean to donate a software development process? Wasn't the Eclipse Foundation already free to use RUP for the development of the Eclipse environment? And couldn't companies using RUP already use the Eclipse environment for their projects?

Re:Pardon me for asking a stupid question, but... (2, Insightful)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777892)

It really depends on what you mean by "free to use RUP". RUP is a customisable, end-to-end process, which I suppose anyone can follow if they can remember all of the bits. As with any end-to-end process though, it is not much use unless it is documented. The software to tailor the process, and the actual process documentation are not free.

While TFA does not really make it clear which bits of RUP are donated, I imagine IBM is at least donating some instantiation of the process, which includes documented procedures and workflows, along with document templates, etc.

Without this donation, Eclipse could probably use something similar to RUP (I suppose they could use some version of it that happens to be in someone's head - but remember, IANAL), however it would be like Chinese whispers: Like all organisations who define their own processes, they are going to make the same mistakes that everyone else has made time and time again. Very few people are able to simply remember everything that needs to be done from the original idea for a software project, through to the packaging of a product.

mod Up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777581)

NIGGER commUnity From the sidelines,

More business for IBM process consultants (1)

sunilrkarkera (233516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777621)

Donating parts of RUP to Eclipse is a way for more projects for IBM process consultants. Also it is an indicator that IBMs client, usually large enterprises, are using open platforms like Eclipse.

The title should have read (0, Offtopic)

melted (227442) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777639)

IBM donates parts of the most retarded, inefficient, bug ridden and downright atrocious software suite in the world to Open Source. Open Source folks don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Honestly, people. Rational Suite is the shittiest, most pointless piece of garbage I've ever used. The only useful part of it is Rational Rose, and even that you can find a good replacement for.

Re:The title should have read (1)

Rodness (168429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777780)

I have to agree.

I have watched people in my office spend WEEKS trying to get ClearCase configured and working correctly, and it needs a buff blade server all to itself. Meanwhile I put up a CVS server (yes, I'm interested in Subversion, but we needed something up and working, FAST, with minimal learning curve) on a pentium-3 linux box and imported everything into it and had it production ready in an hour.

The IBM/Rational guys came out to talk to us about ClearCase setup and they literally wanted something around $10k PER HEAD for the training. It was obscene, and when my irritation got the best of me and I asked exactly what this bought us instead of CVS, the response was that "well, for what you're doing, it's probably not going to make a huge difference."

I had a good experience with Rational Rose around 6 or 7 years ago, and would love to see that sort of functionality added to Eclipse, but I can live without the rest of their tools, or their price tag.

Re:The title should have read (1)

ashridah (72567) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778337)

You know, i'd agree, except IBM isn't donating any software AT ALL here. They're donating IP about the process, not software that implements the process, from what I can see.

(fwiw, there's already a UML framework being built for eclipse for other utilities to build upon. not a complete UML modelling tool yet, however, by any means)

ash

RUP in practice (2, Interesting)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777644)

My company decided to go with RUP a few years ago. It took months of classes and basically just an iterative process that has very heavy on process and paperwork and is based on UML. Very unproductive in the environment I worked in. A few lines of code changes could result in 40+ hours of paperwork and reviews. So I saw in practice you start with RUP, strip out what you don't like, and you end up with simple iterative process we could have thought of ourselves rather than spending a ton of money on Rational consulting. The Rational products for doing the modeling were crap. Couldn't stand them. I like Rational's ClearQuest for bug tracking and ClearCase for source control but other than that the rest was junk.

Re:RUP in practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13777678)

Right on! Actually Rational recommends that you use RUP as a guide and tailor it to your own process... But CQ+CC do rock. Much better than the CVS+Bugzilla garbage.

What about purify? (2, Informative)

branchingfactor (650391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13777761)

The only valuable piece of software owned by Rational is purify. Does anyone know if IBM donated purify to open source or did they keep it to themselves?

Re:What about purify? (1)

sunilrkarkera (233516) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778054)

IBM has not donated Purify to Open Source. I agree that RUP is a big time waster. RUP also takes more managers. Agile/XP is the way to go.

Re:What about purify? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13778095)

Nope. Purify is stil very much propreitary.

Re:What about purify? (2, Informative)

notwrong (620413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778309)

ClearCase [wikipedia.org] is pretty neat too, once you're used to it. I no longer work for the company where I used it, but there are some very nice features, eg having version control transparently part of the filesystem, actually useful branching and labelling schemes, decent merge/conflict resolution, and multi-site support. This meant we were mainly dealing with the genuine complexity in making 50 or so developers work together, rather than fighting against version control and each other.

I donate better stuff to Salvation Army (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13778125)

The whole Rational/IBM love story is about the great american management dream. Which is, take a sh?thead, have him/her/it read a book and learn a process and you got yourself a terrific programmer. The minute he/she/it starts putting on airs, you fire him/her/it and get another sh?thead.

The folks who founded Ratioanal made a lot of money by playing that game with IBM. I remember being sent to a class design class 12 years ago where they'd have you write up class functions, properties, forget what else on pieces of paper, shuffle the pieces a few times, and supposedly you get great class design that way. Then it was some other nonsense, then some other nonsense, now it that RUP thing. Give me a fscking break.

Purify is ok (I think because Ratioanal bought the product, not developed it), the rest of their stuff is utter crap.

IBM donated parts of RUP (1)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13778388)

IBM has decided to contribute portions of the Rational Unified Process

What's the open source community going to do with a bunch of makefiles and white papers? :^)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...