UML, DSL, y Microsoft, parte 2

En refuerzo de lo dicho antes, encuentro a Tad Anderson, escribiendo en .NET Developer´s Journal, que en septiembre de 2007 habla de las decisiones de Microsoft sobre UML, y su respaldo a DSL, afirmando que en dos años, no tuvo oportunidad ni medios de usar el set incluído en VSTS:
Over the past 2 years I have had the VSTS Architecture version installed and I have not used the DSL tools once on a project
Las razones muestran un camino que hoy parece estar remontándose:

A few years ago Microsoft decided to cut off its nose to spite its face.The war on UML started with the DSL movement.Although Microsoft still claimed to see UML as an essential tool, they stopped trying to compete with the rest of the market and tried to lead us down a new path that did not include UML.
With Rosario around the corner (a very big corner) the emphases is on Application Life-cycle Management (ALM).I think that is great. But the claim that their DSL tools will support the essential design documents is once again WRONG!!!! The DSL tools currently supported are the ones they are going to depend on again in the future.
Over the past 2 years I have had the VSTS Architecture version installed and I have not used the DSL tools once on a project. I have looked at them several times, but I always found SPARX Enterprise Architect (EA) easier to use to make meaningful artifacts. Microsoft did try to save a little face by saying they do support and suggest UML for domain modeling.
But there suggestion was to model in Visio (UML 1.2 or 1.4??), forward engineer the model to code and then open it up in their DSL class modeler. That is just plain dumb when tools like Enterprise Architect exist. Yes, Microsoft is partnering with SPARX now, but the ALM movement just confuses things because it introduces tools that step all over SPARX EA tools that support ALM, except for UML. Go figure.?.?.

Y concluye, tras relacionar el modelado con el marco en que lo usaría:

Microsoft’s ALM push will probably be good for project managers, but Microsoft still does not get that they are continuing to ignore the architect.

No está de más leer su nota completa. Es más contundente que lo que aquí extracto.