Buy rational rose software

And making business aware of these choices. Let me show you more". Why don't you open your home as a homeless shelter if you want to show how charity works. IBM is a for profit corporation putting money into the the pockets of stock holders and thousands of world wide employees. What have you done this week? Score: 5 , Informative.

Score: 3 , Informative. Envy went into the VisualAge series. I've used both, and I much prefer VisualAge. The IDE is bound to the JVM bad , but the environment allows you to work in an object-oriented way; I can pull out a class and work with it. I can pull out a method and look at that. In Eclipse, everything is file-based; to work with a method, the IDE just scrolls to the right place in the text file : Also, the VisualAge debugger was X better than Eclipse.

Try step-through debugging with both. Try dropping to a selected frame in the execution stack rather than restarting your app from the beginning. Just wanted to clarify that Ecipse isn't really the next iteration of VisualAge; it's a replacement product which is getting better every release.

What about ArgoUML [tigris. Score: 2. What do you have against UML? It's a way of passing knowledge so disparate people can understand what's going on. What's wrong with that? Heck, even I think some UML diagram types are a bit hokey. But what, specifically, is your beef? I'd be happy with anything they did that made the Rational suite faster and less buggy. It's functional and can produce good work today. Are there any other decent entries out there? A much more plausible "demonstration of loyalty" would be that they make clearcase work better under Linux.

Their very cool multi-version filesystem now requires binary kernel modules that only work with certain kernel versions, and are a bit flaky even then so is the windows version, though the solaris version is stable. I use clearcase every day, but I do without mvfs on my laptop, because it's just not worth the grief. IBM will want clearcase to work smoothly with Linux, and I this pretty much requires that the kernel parts be free software.

They could also bring the disastrous unix GUI to parity with windows. Rational is a case tool for OO. Who would buy something, then later give it away for free as in beer? Other than that, do you really find UML diagrams useful beyond sketches on a white board? Very Long Score: 3 , Interesting. Rational is the latest in a series of products touted to revolutionize the way software is created. I used to use Rational about 3 years back. Slippery writes:.

Are you kidding me?!?! I mean.. I hope they don't gut it Score: 4 , Interesting. A lot of the time, this is what happens when a big company buys a company like that, and it would be a real shame if this happened to Rational.

Grady Booch recently spoke at our company, and his enthusiasm was infectious! It is obvious that he and the other Rational Fellows have a pretty good vision of where UML and RUP should go, and it would be a real shame if that was lost.

Re:I hope they don't gut it Score: 2 , Interesting. Gimme a freaking break! RUP is the biggest waste of time this side of the big bang. In the time spent getting up to speed with RUP, using SourceForge or other streamlined collaborative development mechanisms you could be releasing product. RUP is what's wrong with software engineering today. Big, fat and bloated. I hope IBM can the "Rational Fellows" on day one -- they've done more to retard the development of efficient, agile software development than anyone else.

No cost and orders of more successful projects than Rational has ever been able to achieve. Valgrind Score: 5 , Informative. Anyone looking for similar functionality in an open source package may want to check out Valgrind. I've used it for a short while and its great. Re:Valgrind Score: 2. It is similar functionality to the Purify product. I should have specified that.

Funny thing is that someone rated it informative. Rational Rose Score: 5 , Interesting. Maybe after buying it IBM will run it into the ground ala Lotus. We can only hope. Re:Rational Rose Score: 4 , Informative. Rational Rose was one of the buggiest, worst-designed pieces of software I've ever used.

It's called "round trip engineering" and if you aren't doing it, you wasted your money buying ROSE! Re:Rational Rose Score: 5 , Informative. Togethersoft can do transparent roundtrip engineering. Rational just manages to mangle code going both ways. Re:Rational Rose Score: 2.

Re:Togethersoft Score: 2. You sound as though this makes it different someho wfrom the Rational tools. Price out a 1. Big deal. Yes, but Rational Rose doesn't really do round-trip engineering successfully. I have run into several situations where Rose 'forgets' to pull in certain classes, neglects to pull in the comments written in the code, and deletes the comments in the existing model.

Rose is supposed to be helpful with designing AND documenting. If it continually deletes your comments, it certainly is not helping with the documentation. There's more to visualizing software than class diagrams, and ArgoUML's support for interaction and sequence diagrams is non-existent. If the world were sane, MagicDraw [magicdraw. Here, Here! I've had horrible experiences with Rose. It has always amused me that a company that creates tools to support modern software design and build methods and which is backed by some of the top names in the field of software design methodology could write such buggy code.

It makes me wonder if the design methodology itself is to blame. If you don't create a superior product when you are the experts at a supposedly superior methodology, something is seriously wrong with the methodology.

Thank God they ran out of money like everyone else- they were clueless as hell and couldn't come up with a spec to save their lives. There were so many bugs and "bleeding-edge" features in Rose that looked cool but that weren't usable because of bugs. Printing was the worst. I repeatedly tried to print diagrams on all kinds of printers with no success.

Each diagram came out the size of a postage stamp at the top left corner of each sheet of paper. It also liked to print out tons of blank sheets with a "page m of n " footer at the bottom. If you need lots of scrap paper it's a great product. We joked that Rational and the paper industry were in cahoots together.

I knew someone who worked at a small shop up in Vancouver which was responsible for maintaining the old version of rational rose. The unix version is actually the windows version "ported" using some toolkit that helps port win32 apps to unix. So now you have the bug prone and complex win32 api, then reimplemented ontop of a different platform, so you have several sources of bugs.

Now how crappy is the unix version? Good and Bad Points Score: 2 , Interesting. I've seen Rational Software Rational Rose Mainly has improved in Stability since on the windows platform, but on Solaris it is better but still buggy.

Hopefully IBM will improve the performance in Solaris. I hear it is ok in Linux, but room for improvement exists so we will se an improvement there, I've never personally used any Rational Software in Linux so I'm assuming what I've been told is true. I do hope IBM ports the software to other platforms well. I would sure love being able to make up some UML Diagrams on any system I desire with the same program. Together Soft is what I use often because it works so well on many platforms without fuss, but I prefer Rose as its UML is more standard and it just seems to crash less.

IBM could also do what our "friends" at Microsoft did to Visio and ruin a good piece of software with patented Microsoft bloat.

I can't help myself Score: 3 , Funny. Rational software quality Score: 5 , Insightful. Rational software is some of the worst designed examples of user interface out there.

There are two types of people that like rational software: 1. They haven't used anything better like togethersoft or visio. They are management and don't actually have to use it. Rational and IBM should get along great. Neither company produces good software. But both companies produce incredible salespeople.

Working for a large bank, I have a great deal of respect for these guys. How would you like to try selling IBM or rational products? As engineers we are usually too honest. I'd never get anywhere. Rational sells a process. The process is great for business people because it produces visible artifacts. Aptly named, as they don't get used and are only good in the archeological sense. Togethersoft recently bought by Borland has much better software but it is very expensive, and they don't have the quality salesforce IBM has.

So if you think that salespeople don't matter, think again. In this case, they can take a barely functional product and have it dominate that sector of industry. Even in the face of better products. Re:Rational software quality Score: 2. Actually, it was originally "Shapeware" not "Shareware". I heard from Rational University course instructors that Rational software itself is made without any using of Rational software itself.

Second, Rational products are very badly integrated to work togethers. Clearcase Score: 4 , Insightful. Clearcase is another of rational's products. I'm curious about other people's experiences. Things I don't like: 1. Costs too much. CVS works better, and is free. Advantages of Clearcase: 1. Has salespeople. Clearcase performance depends on your network.

The performance was excellent and clearcase really made a difference to the teams productivity. It was certainly better than CVS, which it replaced. Actually, comparing clearcase to CVS is like comparing Matlab to a 5-dollar pocket calculator.

While the clearcase GUI on windows is excellent and much better than the unix equivalent, its performance is infinitely worse, with the performance of a view degrading in proportion to the amount of time the windows machine on which the view was created has been left turned on.

Finally, we instituted a policy that all win2K machines have to be rebooted every monday morning. Re:Clearcase Score: 4 , Insightful. That's only if you place the code base on the network. In addition, Clearcase allows you to have several base code repositories VOBs replicated on a network, then synchronizes them automatically.

This would limit or eliminate the problem you mentioned above. Network problems are network problems. They have nothing to do with Clearcase. That's like saying, "CVS sucks cause when I can't telnet to the server, it doesn't try to compensate". Clearcase does not integrate into Windows like, say, IE. This is vague. Creating a release version? I have been using Clearcase on both Windows and Unix for several years now, and the only thing which takes any appreciable amount of time is configuring views, branches, etc.

At that, it still only takes a few minutes, and is done once. It's definitely expensive. CVS, however, does not work better. In fact, CVS is much more limited in capabililty than Clearcase. CVS does work well, and is the right tool for many applications and development teams. However, if the project becomes large, distributed, or has many different builds and releases, Clearcase would work better in the long run. How about this: Advantages of Clearcase: 1. Works seemlessly on both Unix and Windows.

GUI for both Unix and Windows. Can take advantage of distributed code base development. Graphic 'diff' programs to view the differences between files and versions of files. Graphic 'merge' programs which aid merging files between different views, or files from different branches. Those are a few advantages Clearcase is a very nice tool. It was originally created by another company, whose name escapes me at the moment, then later purchased by Rational.

Now, Rational Rose, on the other hand, has it's fare share of problems Re:Clearcase Score: 2. ClearCase linux support is quite limited, and its mvfs multi-versioned file system. It's how they do dynamic views is the only reason I use binary-only kernel modules. For this I resent Rational. I hope IBM will see the light and release the kernel module as free software so I can run ClearCase with a stock kernel.

Do your organization a favor. Don't develop a dependency on ClearCase. It will hold you back. Re:Clearcase Score: 2 , Informative. Had to rreply to this one I feel like I need to answer your list of ClearCase's benefits.

Also has Windows explorer integration that works better as in faster than ClearCase's dog-slow file integration. I think you can do that with CVS too. Oh yeah, I'll bet a LOT of people really make use of that one. If you don't mind a bit more manual procedure then ediff beats everything I've ever used.

When we used CVS the automerges did not go wrong ONCE, and anything that needed a merge by hand we could just set the tool up to use Araxis or anythign else because it was not an "Integrated Tool".

I already covered my problems under the "diff" section, which is really the same thing. The thing you forgot to mention that IS a real strength of ClearCase is that it also does directory versioning. However, I would frankly give up that benefit in an instant for the much easier usability of CVS. There are very large open source projects like emacs or Mozilla that use CVS, prooving that large projects can and do work even with the limitations of CVS. Sure, with a team of dedicated admins who know what they are doing, perhaps ClearCase might be better.

But how many companies really have that? And is it worthwhile when just about anyone can set up a CVS server almost without thought? Re:Had to rreply to this one Have you any idea how incredibly useful this feature is? For example: let us say a developer checked out a heavily used. Pretty much everything in his view will rebuild. For a large project having tens of thousands of files, this could take hours if not days. But once he checks his stuff in, no other developer in his team will have to go through the compile, since clearcase winks in all the object files from the first developer's view!

Suffice to say that this is one of the biggest selling points of Clearcase to people who know about this feature. I use CC now and I completely agree with you. The graphical merge tool is horrbile. I use ClearCase mode in Xemacs and use the Emacs diff - it's much much better.

Re:Clearcase Score: 5 , Informative. Here's a couple more small things: - Try to do a rename on a file in CVS and retain the element history.

Users of clearcase and CVS don't completely overlap On Demand Computing Score: 2. This purchase is another piece of IBM's new strategy [news. Anyone a Notes user at work?

I agree with you. Score: 3 , Interesting. Omigod, I guess there still are some. You don't know what you are talking about, dumbass. General rule of thumb is a company is worth about what it's next year revenues are expected to be. Or if it is losing money, it's book value. The market valuation is pretty much in line with that. They overpaid, period. Was it transfered with a "hot potato" clause and Microsoft gets it back? Or can IBM pull the plug and bury it?

From what I've heard, this purchase of Rational by IBM can only be good news since the Rational products need some major tuning. I also wonder if this doesn't have anything to do with Borland purchasing TogetherSoft and getting TogetherJ? Look, there's nothing wrong with banner ads or corporate sponsorship, but Is it just me, or have more and more stories been taking on a decidedly 'advertisatory' to coin a word tone in the past year?

SlashDot did not used to be like this. At least CNN. Look at this gem of a screenshot [twu. Shouldn't SlashDot do the same? I might wish to politely suggest that, except in cases where anonymity is needed e. As opposed to All that irrational software they've been buying lately. I just see the meeting now BoardMember1: So we are going to purchase Rational software? BoardMember2: Don't we always purchase rational software? BoardMember1: No, we've never purchased Rational software, we've purchased other software before.

BoardMember3: Other software? What, we've been running on irrational software for years? BoardMember1: No, no, no! The other software we buy isn't irrational, it's just not Rational software. BoardMember2: Isn't non-rational software irrational? BoardMember3: I think he's right Bob. BoardMember1: Okay, okay whatever We've always bought irrational software.. Now all those in favour of purchasing Rational Software say aye. Everyone: Aye.

No wonder we've had to much problem.. I'll be here all night people. Hey, it worked out great for Tivoli!! IBM bought Tivoli in The rapid infusion of talented personel from IBM, who brought with them a set of skills honed over decades of wasting millions of dollars developing worthless products, turned the aggressive young company into the dismembered, meaningless WebSphere hanger-on it is today.

Rational employees should look forward to eager smiling IBM managers showing up wearing Rational t-shirts and spouting their love and respect for everything Rational stands for. Shortly will follow the working groups, the process groups, the import of random dinosaur projects from elsewhere in IBM into the Rational product suite, and best of all a decision-making mechanism that will ensure no useful new products will ever be created.

In two years, "Rational" will be little more than a second-level menu off some VisualAge product. Purify Score: 2. I'm surprised how few people have mentioned Rational Purify. This is the only Rational tool I have ever really used I played with Quantify a little bit, but didn't really invest the time to judge its usefulness. And it's also really easy to use. OK so what does Rational do?

I tried to figure it out on their site Data Modelling?? As in flowcharts? Or developing software in a very easy high-level language in an emulated environment to test its functionality? Call me naiive but I'm sure I'm not alone.

Yet Another Alternative to Rational I've used Rational Rose since the 98 version and I would say it has improved in it's stability and flexibility. However, when I recently worked for a client who wanted to begin introducing formalized requirements and analysis to their developers, I could not help the tech director justify the cost of Rational products.

In addition, it includes better tools for doing project estimation, risk management, and requirements traceability. Therefore, you can have multiple users working on the same model. Truly worth looking into if the only reason you're not using UML tools is price. They belong together Score: 4 , Funny. They are all packages that are immensely bloated, impossible to configure and marginally useful at best assuming you have a PhD in the package in question.

Sounds like a good match to me. Re:What do they do? Here, let me help: Google [google. Re:Thank G-d!!! Rational Rose is the shittiest piece of software I have ever had to use. Not only that but the program costs like thousands of dollars from what I hear. By judging the one piece of software they make that I have used I can tell you that Rational was not a very good company. It does a hell of a lot more than "draw UML diagrams" - if that's all you wanted to do, you should have been using Visio.

If you ever work on a project with a development team of a hundred or more OO developers, then you need what Rational's tools like ROSE have got, there's really nothing else that can manage projects that complex.

Harsh as this may sound, if you're an undergraduate you really don't qualify to have an opinion on ROSE either way. That doesn't change the fact that Rose is shite. Moved my class right back. Didn't restore any other part of the layout though. Thanks, Rational. I guess I didn't really need those method bodies.

And those are only the onese I remember after a couple of years of repressing memories of using Rational Rose. Higher Education and Professional Books.

Computing and Information Technology Books. Quatrani Terry. As software application development becomes more complex, the benefits of developing a comprehensive "blueprint" enabling developers to visualize the complete scope of a project increase substantially. Three elements are needed to successfully diagram and visualize a software system--a process, a notation, and a modeling tool.

This timely new book introduces the reader to three of the most popular and influential such elements; the Rational Objectory process, the Unified Modeling Language UML , and Rational Rose. With the practical direction offered in this book, you will be able to specify, visualize, document, and create software solutions.

Throughout the book, a simplified case study a course registration system for a university is employed to illustrate the analysis and design of an application.