No, the idea is that your language should be able to express patterns in the language. Then they're not patterns any more—they're libraries! Working with an exp

No, the idea is that your language should be able to express patterns in the language. Then they're not patterns any more—they're libraries! Working with an explicit abstraction from a library is far more pleasant than working with an implicit abstraction from a book. The way to achieve this is emphatically not adding patterns to the language spec. Instead, you want small and simple languages that can grow—languages flexible enough to add new abstractions that let you write code the way you want. "Growing a Language"[1] by Guy Steele expounds on this and, as a bonus, is the single best technical talk I've ever watched. Highly recommend watching it[1] or, if you're pressed for time, reading the transcript[2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0 [2]: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/steele.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/steele.pdf