Comments on: Design patterns as language http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/ Alex Miller's technical blog Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:10:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Michael Easter http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8650 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:16:26 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8650 +1 on the thought. Some thoughts: (a) The GoF book was a "total package" that still blows me away. It not only introduced an entire _catalog_ of patterns, but also introduced the "design pattern" (from architecture) ! (b) The power of language and metaphor transcends from the heights of architecture down through to the local variables/members of a class. I get along well with people who torture themselves over naming an important new class. +1 on the thought. Some thoughts:

(a) The GoF book was a “total package” that still blows me away. It not only introduced an entire _catalog_ of patterns, but also introduced the “design pattern” (from architecture) !

(b) The power of language and metaphor transcends from the heights of architecture down through to the local variables/members of a class. I get along well with people who torture themselves over naming an important new class.

]]> by: Alex http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8649 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:12:05 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8649 Well, I think design patterns are more than that too. I've read a little of Alexander's work (and some stuff that derives from it). I was really trying to say in the quote above that I don't see how anyone can disagree with the language aspect. To me, it's the first and most obvious benefit of the patterns movement in software. Well, I think design patterns are more than that too. I’ve read a little of Alexander’s work (and some stuff that derives from it). I was really trying to say in the quote above that I don’t see how anyone can disagree with the language aspect. To me, it’s the first and most obvious benefit of the patterns movement in software.

]]> by: javakid http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8648 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:48:55 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8648 I beg to disagree when you say ... I think patterns are important for no other reason than to serve as a language that developers can use to talk to each other. It’s so much easier to just say that something is a “factory” or that something uses “delegation” or a “proxy” or whatever. These things have meaning that has been fixed (to some degree) by GoF and for that we are ever indebted. ... I think design patterns are much more than that. I would recommend reading Christopher Alexander's keynote at OOSLA 1996 (http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee/ieeetext.htm). I beg to disagree when you say

…
I think patterns are important for no other reason than to serve as a language that developers can use to talk to each other. It’s so much easier to just say that something is a “factory” or that something uses “delegation” or a “proxy” or whatever. These things have meaning that has been fixed (to some degree) by GoF and for that we are ever indebted.
…

I think design patterns are much more than that. I would recommend reading Christopher Alexander’s keynote at OOSLA 1996 (http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee/ieeetext.htm).

]]> by: Howard Lovatt http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8582 Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:08:00 +0000 http://tech.puredanger.com/2007/09/19/design-patterns-as-language/#comment-8582 I like design patterns and in particular how they can be used to document intent and allow people to discuss a trade off. For example the Singleton pattern has good and bad points; if there is really only one instance of something in a system then that uniqueness is enforced by the compiler, which is nice, on the other hand it makes it harder to mock the object for testing. A discussion around singletons can then be had to determine which is the best approach for a given project. I like the language of patterns so much that my pet project: http://pec.dev.java.net/nonav/compile/index.html is an extended Java compiler that enforces design patterns by explicitly marking the role a class plays in a pattern, consider it an extension of type checking. I like design patterns and in particular how they can be used to document intent and allow people to discuss a trade off. For example the Singleton pattern has good and bad points; if there is really only one instance of something in a system then that uniqueness is enforced by the compiler, which is nice, on the other hand it makes it harder to mock the object for testing. A discussion around singletons can then be had to determine which is the best approach for a given project.

I like the language of patterns so much that my pet project:

http://pec.dev.java.net/nonav/compile/index.html

is an extended Java compiler that enforces design patterns by explicitly marking the role a class plays in a pattern, consider it an extension of type checking.

]]>