3 ms·
Your right, having a to tool doesn't mean you use it correctly. However, the harder it is to apply a tool the less likely you are to do so. I think the authors
by blain_the_train 9y ago
Your right, having a to tool doesn't mean you use it correctly. However, the harder it is to apply a tool the less likely you are to do so. I think the authors point isn't to demonstrate that the design is bad, but rather how it's done in clojure.
- thom 9y agoC++ or Java or whatever not matching someone's aesthetics doesn't change the fact that providing an interface that accepts a Strategy or works with Commands is a design choice, not a language feature. It doesn't matter how it's implemented. The snippets of code in the GoF book aren't the point of design patterns, they're in no way canonical, and people pretending for _decades_ that they are really grinds my gears. But not as much as Clojure having no good implementation of the age old 'Readable Stacktrace' design pattern. :)
- sooheon 9y ago> It doesn't matter how it's implemented Well it does, a little bit. If you implement them by aligning rocks on a sunny beach, it might take a tad longer and more prone to bit rot. Java may as well be that for some people.