Literalmente! Trata-se d'uma entrevista do Sr Rick LaPlante, gerente geral do VSTS (Visual Studio Team System) para o eWeek. Vamos lá:

Sobre o uso da UML nas ferramentas da MS:
We will do some of them. … And it depends on if you're talking about UML 2.0 or UML 1.4.x. For UML 2.0 we will certainly rely on partners on our platform, building on our infrastructure to deliver a full UML 2.0 implementation. And we will deliver some of them ourselves. So we will certainly continue to deliver the Visio modeling tools that we have, which are UML 1.4 compliant. So we'll continue to deliver those tools.
!: A MS não terá mais suporte total a UML!! (..rely on partners..)
Eles conheceram UML através da Rational, qdo licenciaram um Rose Light prá 1a geração do Visual Studio. Nunca ouve um 'comprometimento' de-facto com o padrão (é contra a religião deles), mas UML nunca foi um padrão-inimigo. A MS nunca teve nada prá por no lugar...

And then the strategy is to take the key domains out of the UML model that we think are really critical. And there are some of them. Like "use cases" is very interesting. It's a very interesting domain in and of itself, so we think that over time we will build use-case designers directly into the tooling. And then there are some that will look like what UML produces but are in fact domain-specific.
!: O q é bom (e a gente entende) a gente vai usar, o resto nós vamos inventar... "domain-specific"?!?! Os estereótipos da UML foram criados pr'isso, oras!!!

So let me give you an example—the sequence designer. In UML they have a generic sequence designer for designing sequences of integrations between anything. We have the notion of a WSDL contract designer, and it has very specific semantics because WSDL has very specific semantics. It looks a lot like a sequence designer.
!: Ter uma ferramenta mais 'esperta' prá elaboração de diagramas de sequência "especialistas" é uma grande idéia. Mas a UML não precisa ser mudada, precisa?

We will not ship that in the first version, but when we do ship it people will look at that and say, "Hey, that's a sequence designer." Well, it mostly is a sequence designer, but it has very specific semantics towards a problem domain.
!: Ah, tá atrasado?

Now, why should anybody care about that? Here is the one gem I have learned in the five years of dealing in this space, from some incredibly smart people we've got that have been working in this problem space for 20 years. And that is that the closer the underlying representation is to the model, the more likely it is that you can have a triples experience.

And the notion of "round trip," which UML talks about, I think is just wrong. I don't want round trip, I want triples. I want the relationship of a view to a database table. It can never be out of synch because it's just a view of the same data. That's what you need to get to from a tooling perspective to make this stuff work.
!: Uai, ele nunca viu o Together trabalhando?

And that's why, quite frankly, people don't use UML. They may use it to document, they use it to do some initial design, and then it goes by the wayside. And I think, with all respect to Grady [Booch, co-creator of UML], I think we're a long way away from executable UML.
!: Pessoas não usam UML pq são fracas em OO, fracas em análise e projeto de sistemas e vítimas d'uma cultura de décadas que valoriza a codificação rápida...
Mas há tempos eu revelei outra preocupação (da MS): o MDA - STL inexplicavelmente ausente na discussão do LaPlate. O máximo que ele se permitiu foi citar "executable UML". Pq medo? Pq MDA promete facilitar (e muito!) a transição de plataformas!!
Estratégia: bão, qdo tratei do tema pela 1a vez foi prá mostrar a ridícula idéia de programação via 'powerpoint'... objetivo de vida d'uma ms-laranja (outra?!?) chamada intentional ... o nome, as cores do logo... só pode ser piada, não é possível!!!

I came from the world of writing C++ compilers. I'm not a modeling guy.

Ok ok... a gente perdoa.