Outra explicação prá birra da MS com UML (que não exclui por completo a teoria do post anterior), é a mal contada história da compra da Rational. Más línguas (inclusive a matéria da eWeek, citada anteriormente) sugerem que a MS fez o 1o bid pela Rational. Por uma razão desconhecida, os caras teriam optado pela IBM (por menos $$$, dizem as piores más línguas, hehe).

Um trecho da resposta de Mr Grady Booch, prá mesma eWeek:

"Well, increasingly you see Microsoft, and I can't speak fully for them, but looking on the outside, increasingly they're taking the non-standards/open standards route. Even the statements they've made about not necessarily supporting UML is another stake in that direction. Is that a long-term sustainable strategy? Hard to say, except that IBM Rational is placing its bets on the open marketplace, primarily because in the kinds of systems people are building these days, there is a far greater need for interoperability, and that demands a common understanding of standards against which we build all sorts of things. So we think that kind of openness is necessary for the current and future generation of systems.

I wish Microsoft the best. That strategy Microsoft is pursuing is one that we've intentionally not because we view the openness to be far more important."

Um gentleman. Covardia convocá-lo prá duelar com um 'not modeling guy'...

ps: Dúvida FDP: o uso da palavra 'intentionally' ali em cima foi 'intentional'????