I think the article is not bad. It just mentions some patterns and compares them. of course they can be composed. While I agree an "architectural astronaut" ap

I think the article is not bad. It just mentions some patterns and compares them. of course they can be composed. While I agree an "architectural astronaut" approach to software engineering is wrong, we still have to understand the main underpinnings of software engineering. data, separation of concerns, composability, state vs non stateless. recognizing patterns in granular code as well as in system composition is important. And naming them makes communication easy. PubSub, Visitor, Mvc, etc are still useful names. What I think is funny is that the java implementations are often big compared to the same solution in functional languages. Static OO languages often need "software patterns" such as wrapper objects, where they are nonexistent in functional languages. imho