How does EA compare to Describe from Embarcadero?

[Havyck]

   Has anyone compared the two. Right now at work were thinking of going with EA. I notice a lot of former Rational Rose users like it. Is it comparable to Rose? Do you loose out on functionality? Any comments or thoughts would be appreciated..

[Tjerk]

Hi Havyck,

I've not worked with Rational Rose much, but from what I've heard: Rational Rose and EA support roughly the same features, Rational as separate packages (like Soda) and EA integrated. As compared with Rose Realtime, I guess EA will lack functionality (code generation from statediagrams, in the loop debugging of model and code and probably more). But then you are comparing two different things I guess.

What I like with EA is a number of things:
- Snappy responses by forummembers and Sparx itself;
- Very often new updates of EA offering the many of the features requested by myself and others, without losing stability or being incompatible with earlier versions;
- An automation interface / accessible model data outside EA: I use this feature to create XML Schemas directly from the modelfile using Java and ODBC.
- Much, much cheaper than Rose. Many of my clients now happilly use EA, while they thought it was all too expensive to start with modelling using a tool.

By the way, I'm not familiar with Embarcadero (or is it a synonym for Rose?  :-/).

Greetings,
Tjerk

[Jeffrey Bush]

Visit www.embarcadero.com
Describe Enterprise is Embarcadero's UML application solution as well the application integrates with ER Studio, Embarcadero's data modeling application, via a bridge to link ER diagrams and Class diagrams.

01. No support for team collaboration or virtual white-boarding.
02. No integrations with popular IDE's.
03. No integrations with Requirements Tools, such as DOORS, Caliber RM, and Requisite Pro.
04. Poor reporting capabilities.
05. No live round trip.
06. No way to associate elements and diagrams.
07. Has no integration with database modeling.
08. Lacks synchronization between related models.
09. Poor support of namespaces. Users have to manually check models over and over again when renaming a class or move it to another namespace.
10. Has weakness in usability of the Sequence Diagram - no object markers, no easy way to create space. You find yourself using your time laying out and re-laying out your diagram.
11. Has limited scalability. Your model (50-75 thousand lines of code) will become difficult to manage as this tool is designed for very small projects, hence the pricing.
12. Sometimes has incomplete reverse-engineering, dropping associations and dependencies. Additionally, EA does not provide you with three, easy to navigate diagrams, Package, Class and Hierarchical. The real problem is when users need run a quick report by reverse-engineering the latest changes to the system, they often must manipulate the layout by hand taking far too much time.

Embarcadero Describe generates marker-less code via forward engineering/code generation.
Embarcadero Describe has excellent and responsive support team.

[Jeff Bush]

Considering the disadvantages of EA comparing Embarcadero's Describe. I would definitely evaluate Embarcadero Describe.
Visit the following url for more information.
http://www.embarcadero.com/products/describe/index.asp

[Eduardo]

Describe does not even have its price available at its web site.  You must make a request for pricing.  That should say that it may be too expensive for a lot of shops.

Like Together (also a great product that ties in with JBuilder) Describe must be close to US$5,000.00 per copy.

I guess if you must have that level of add on to your IDE, the project must justify the cost.

However, thanks for the comparison.  I was about to suggest a company buy 10-20 EA licenses.  Now, maybe we need to see when the shortcomings you mention are to be attacked by EA.

-Eduardo

[Havyck]

   So how long you been working for Embarcadero Jeff?  

Oh by the way I have a let's trash EA email from you guys. I didn't need another one posted here. But maybe someone else will benefit from it...

[Rob]

If indeed Jeffrey Bush is an employee of Embarcadero, then as another (previously lurking) competitor of Sparx, I would be appalled if such a competitor would hide behind a Yahoo address, pretending to be a member of the general public, and criticize EA in Sparx own forum.

I know that I would not stoop to criticize a competitor's product in their own forum while using a fake identity and I would hope that Sparx would not do so either. Its just not necessary.

I believe that customers are more respectful of competitors that behave in an honest and respectful manner toward each other and will make their decisions on the merits of each company's offerings .

Like us, and others, Sparx has worked hard to provide an affordable, quality product in a market that is dominated by the likes of Rational. After all, the market is big enough for all of us and there are enough customers with diverse enough needs and budgets to support us all. Lets not forget that not everyone can afford the multi-thousand dollar per license (plus mandatory annual support and training) solutions offered by Rational, etc. So, we try to provide less costly alternatives which we obviously make compromizes and concessions in functionality, interoperability, etc.

However, knowing what I do about Describe's ancestry (Describe was formerly known as GDPro, a product that Embarcadero acquired from a company here in Denver, CO a couple of years ago) I doubt that Embarcadero (assuming they are a reputable company) would condone such behavior by one of their employees.

So, come on Jeff, own up...are you an empoloyee of Embarcadero or not?

Rob,
Visual Object Modelers (Visual UML)

[PhilR]

Maybe I'm a bit slow When I first read this I thought that the negatives were about the Embarcadero product.  I guess if you are going to spout forth it would be a good idea to be articulate  

Some of the points are incorrect.

03. No integrations with Requirements Tools, such as DOORS, Caliber RM, and Requisite Pro.
04. Poor reporting capabilities.
07. Has no integration with database modeling.

Point 3.  Check out EAReqPro.  Check out the recent thread on integrating EA with DOORS using .csv files.

Point 4.  In addition to the built in .rtf and HTML reporting.  Reports can be produced via the automation interface or an ODBC compliant report generator (Crystal Reports etc).  Finally you can open the database in MS Access and report away to your heart's content.

Point 5.  Completely wrong. EA implements a data modelling UML profile and will generate SQL schemas.

I can comment on the other points but hope thay are more accurate that the ones I am certain about.

Once you are articulate, practice accuracy  

PhilR

[Steve_Straley]

Phil,

What I find interesting is the list of products Mr. Bush listed for requirements.  In my opinion, it is NOT the duty of EA to be modified to integrate with those products; rather, the duty of those products (if they see the need) to integrate with EA (or any other UML tool).   You can ask Geoff that we worked with what was provided in EA and built EPG-RequirementControl (name change).   Moreover, when Mr. Bush mentioned "RequistePro" he is being disingenuous.  That product is built to integrate with only the Rational suite and quite frankly, IT DOESN'T INTEGRATE well at all.   For example, Use Case diagrams can not be inserted in a Use Case document directly between Rose and RequistePro: you need to buy yet another tool (SoDA).  RequistePro does NOT have a feature in it to connect to any other UML tool AT ALL and to take it further, there is NO CONNECTION between RequistePro and, let's say, Together!

As far as the reporting and roundtrip life cycle comments he made, well... that's what EPG-TraceControl, -VersionControl, -TestControl, et cetera are all about.  Describe, for example, relies on other tools to complete the cycle.  Rational does this as well.  Together, prior to the purchase by Borland, didn't have a complete cycle either.  To suggest that EA is lacking on a point that is equally lacking in their own tool and Rose, for example, is again, in my opinion, insincere and without merit.

Bottom line, in my opinion, not only was Mr. Bush disingenuous, but inaccurate with his comparisons and statements reqarding EA and other requirement gathering tools.  And this, I'm afraid, reflects on the company he appears to represent.

Just my .02...

Steve

[Havyck]

  I agree with you Phil. I thought the same thing. But then again I have the email that Jeff cut and pasted from so I sorta caught on after awhile.  

Well we're officially going to try EA here at work. So I'll see how it goes!

Thanks everybody!

[PhilR]

Havyck and Steve,

Thanks for the agreement.  I know the comparison is with Embarcadero but I have to add to Steve's comment on Rose.  If you have ever tried to use SoDA, you will never ever complain about reporting in EA again.

Steve, I think you capture the complexity of the Rational product suite well.  I suppose that a complex, marketing-oriented suite of products such as Rose would have to end up being owned by a certain company renown for that sort of thing.  Guess what?  Thats exactly what happened

Phil

[oakleyje]

Hey Steve, don't keep tormenting us ( non-beta) mortals. When are we going to be able to try/buy EPG-RequirementControl ?

[Steve_Straley]

Hi there,

You're right and not wanting to torment you in any way.  We're doing the help files and user manual and that's it.  Nick and Dan are getting the registration/license process in order.  I hope soon!

Cheers,

Steve

[Havyck]

  Well having looked through the software initially, it looks great. I just made a couple of class diagrams with no problem. I don't know if we will run into trouble down the line as we import more of our project into the tool. Hey, is Enterprise Architect listed on the Nasdaq?