This is the most famous big attempt for visual approach up to now (first time standardized 1997), and the recent (2013) results are:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;oro.open.ac.uk&#x2F;35805&#x2F;8&#x2F;UML%20in%20practice%208.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;oro.open.ac.uk&#x2F;35805&#x2F;8&#x2F;UML%20in%20practice%208.pdf</a><p>&quot;Even if UML is viewed as the ‘de facto’ standard, it is
by no means universally adopted. The majority of those
interviewed simply do not use UML, and those who do use it
tend to do so selectively and often informally.&quot;<p>&quot;They also
highlight some of the fundamental tensions within UML,
resonating with arguments [8], [25], [17] that UML’s intended
strengths (i.e., generality, accommodating different levels of
abstraction) are intimately associated with its observed
weaknesses (e.g., latent complexity, issues of transformation
and coordination between views) and arise from fundamental
properties of UML (e.g. lack of formal semantics, separation of
expressions of structure and behavior).&quot;<p>Whatever we do next, we have a nice set of examples and case studies of &quot;what can go wrong.&quot;<p>The specific software tools based on UML are especially good examples of the problems.