5 ms·

This is, and always has been, a poor criticism of design patterns, by people who think they're just a library of code that idiots are supposed to cut and paste

by thom 10y ago

This is, and always has been, a poor criticism of design patterns, by people who think they're just a library of code that idiots are supposed to cut and paste to be better programmers. A common example from the GoF book is the Strategy pattern - most functional programming snarks will jump in and say you don't need this! We have first class functions you can pass around! And it's entirely true that an implementation of this pattern (a good, simple one even) is just accepting functions as arguments - cool, you probably get it! But the _design_ principle is about making strategies _explicit_ - allowing decisions to be made or policies to be enforced in ways you don't anticipate. I still see _tons_ of libraries written by smart people in functional languages that will still accept an enum of some kind to tell them what do in certain situations (e.g. a lot of HTTP libraries' extremely limited retry logic). That's an explicit design decision - to limit options instead of opening them up. Having a language to talk about the _design decisions_ at a higher level, instead of conflating them with language features, is the whole point. Everybody knows you can pass functions around as arguments, that doesn't necessarily prompt you or make it easier to discuss implementing a Strategy. Design patterns aren't a static, finite set of code snippets, and I actually think things like the linked post that mostly treat them that way aren't helpful. They give you a way of naming and talking about components of a design, possibly at a higher granularity than your programming language (and sure, different languages have different granularities). We've been hearing this same exact criticism for literally 20 years and it's boring at this point. I get that most people don't bother creating new design patterns in public these days (because they've internalised that modern languages have 'design patterns' built in), but if you look at something like React and think it's just JavaScript and there are no design decisions in there worthy of reifying, I think that's sad and unproductive.

js8 10y ago
My main point (just to make sure we are on the same page) was that whatever patterns are, we should also tell computers "look, here I use this pattern", and not rely just on humans to see it. Unfortunately, computers are idiot savants, so this very well might require those to be formally defined. Anyway, I think we have an ontological disagreement here. I don't believe the "design patterns" which cannot be formally defined are useful, or even that they exist. I consider them to be just phantoms, which when you attempt to formally define them, you either understand them much better (to the point where you can see how they are related), or they disappear as something that was misconceived in the first place. You seem to think that there is something real.. fine. Possibly, why I see it that way is my mathematical training. In mathematics, this battle was fought more than a century ago and the formalism camp won. That doesn't mean that intuition is completely useless.. just that people mostly keep their intuitions (and inspirations and analogies) for themselves, and when they communicate, they strive to be formal. To your React example - it's not a pattern, it's a piece of concrete reusable code. We don't need "React pattern", but we need React. Just like mathematicians, we should communicate "patterns" via reusable code.
- mbrock 10y ago
  There are downsides to abstraction, too. The result of the urge of explicitly abstract every pattern can end up being a brittle network of dependencies. It can become really hard to adapt the formal abstractions to small requirement changes—either that or the abstractions end up byzantinely parameterized. Or you have to spend decades doing category theoretical research to discover the platonic essence of your patterns... Formalization hasn't really won in math communication, has it? How much math researched is published as Coq terms or whatever? Maintaining all of math as a network of formal abstractions is really difficult. Basically the insistence on maximal abstraction seems to imply that you try to minimize the length of application source code and as a side effect you maximize the complexity of programming languages and frameworks. By the way, Richard Gabriel discusses this issue in a chapter of his book "Patterns of Software" (free PDF available).
  - js8 10y ago
    I think formalization and abstraction are two different things, and you conflate them in your comment. Formalization, in my view, is about "knowing what you are talking about". So you have a perfectly defined set of basic operations on the concepts you use, and you know what you can do with them and what happens if you do; you cannot cheat by making stuff up as you go along. On the other hand, abstraction deals with "how general I can make this thing" (AKA reusability). What I mean by "formalization has won in mathematics" is that when you write a paper, all concepts you are using have to be formalized, or at least it must be obvious how they can be, typically through a shared context of standard theories (so you don't have to use formalism everywhere, although it would certainly be desirable and eventually I think it will happen). But that doesn't mean you have to always use the maximal level of abstraction. It's perfectly valid mathematics, for instance, to prove a theorem just for Euclidean spaces even though there is nothing that could stop you from proving it for topologies. (And I think Bourbaki group learned about the cost of abstractions the hard way.) The same is fine with code - if you think abstraction hurts it, absolutely go for lower level of abstraction. But it will hurt reusability of said code, no doubt. But if you want to talk about some reusable concept, you should be able to show the code at the correct level of abstraction (or at least be able to show that you are able to show it). So that's my beef with software design patterns - they are abstractions, but aren't formally defined. It's like eating a cake and wanting it, too. They are at best transient thoughts ("funny, this thing here looks awfully similar to that thing there, how so") before somebody should abstract them formally. And I cringe when people think that they help communication, because in mathematics, we already went through that.

by thom 10y ago

js8 10y ago

My main point (just to make sure we are on the same page) was that whatever patterns are, we should also tell computers "look, here I use this pattern", and not rely just on humans to see it. Unfortunately, computers are idiot savants, so this very well might require those to be formally defined. Anyway, I think we have an ontological disagreement here. I don't believe the "design patterns" which cannot be formally defined are useful, or even that they exist. I consider them to be just phantoms, which when you attempt to formally define them, you either understand them much better (to the point where you can see how they are related), or they disappear as something that was misconceived in the first place. You seem to think that there is something real.. fine. Possibly, why I see it that way is my mathematical training. In mathematics, this battle was fought more than a century ago and the formalism camp won. That doesn't mean that intuition is completely useless.. just that people mostly keep their intuitions (and inspirations and analogies) for themselves, and when they communicate, they strive to be formal. To your React example - it's not a pattern, it's a piece of concrete reusable code. We don't need "React pattern", but we need React. Just like mathematicians, we should communicate "patterns" via reusable code.

mbrock 10y ago
There are downsides to abstraction, too. The result of the urge of explicitly abstract every pattern can end up being a brittle network of dependencies. It can become really hard to adapt the formal abstractions to small requirement changes—either that or the abstractions end up byzantinely parameterized. Or you have to spend decades doing category theoretical research to discover the platonic essence of your patterns... Formalization hasn't really won in math communication, has it? How much math researched is published as Coq terms or whatever? Maintaining all of math as a network of formal abstractions is really difficult. Basically the insistence on maximal abstraction seems to imply that you try to minimize the length of application source code and as a side effect you maximize the complexity of programming languages and frameworks. By the way, Richard Gabriel discusses this issue in a chapter of his book "Patterns of Software" (free PDF available).
- js8 10y ago
  I think formalization and abstraction are two different things, and you conflate them in your comment. Formalization, in my view, is about "knowing what you are talking about". So you have a perfectly defined set of basic operations on the concepts you use, and you know what you can do with them and what happens if you do; you cannot cheat by making stuff up as you go along. On the other hand, abstraction deals with "how general I can make this thing" (AKA reusability). What I mean by "formalization has won in mathematics" is that when you write a paper, all concepts you are using have to be formalized, or at least it must be obvious how they can be, typically through a shared context of standard theories (so you don't have to use formalism everywhere, although it would certainly be desirable and eventually I think it will happen). But that doesn't mean you have to always use the maximal level of abstraction. It's perfectly valid mathematics, for instance, to prove a theorem just for Euclidean spaces even though there is nothing that could stop you from proving it for topologies. (And I think Bourbaki group learned about the cost of abstractions the hard way.) The same is fine with code - if you think abstraction hurts it, absolutely go for lower level of abstraction. But it will hurt reusability of said code, no doubt. But if you want to talk about some reusable concept, you should be able to show the code at the correct level of abstraction (or at least be able to show that you are able to show it). So that's my beef with software design patterns - they are abstractions, but aren't formally defined. It's like eating a cake and wanting it, too. They are at best transient thoughts ("funny, this thing here looks awfully similar to that thing there, how so") before somebody should abstract them formally. And I cringe when people think that they help communication, because in mathematics, we already went through that.