3 ms·
Design patterns are probably broader than just the classic collection of OOP patterns. If you use functional features, new patterns will arise (the most trivial
by Asdfbla 9y ago
Design patterns are probably broader than just the classic collection of OOP patterns. If you use functional features, new patterns will arise (the most trivial and oldschool one maybe being map/reduce). The original definition wasn't even programming-related, so their scope is quite large.
I don't think being aware of design patterns is a bad idea. In the end, they are just recurring solutions for architectural issues that many developers independently invented to solve them. They just get a bad rep because people applied them even if it wasn't necessary.
- fdw 9y agoIf I remember correctly, the original GoF book was inspired by patterns in architecture [1], so it's more about naming patterns they have often seen, and not about "if you use these patterns, your code will be better". It's a glossary of sorts, so developers can use the same words for things. This aim is independent of language and paradigma; the authors just happened to see mostly OOP. However, just like Asdfbla said: People started to use it as a kind of manual and applied the patterns no matter the problem. Again, the problem is more the people than the idea... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_(architecture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_(architecture)
- Eridrus 9y agoWhen I had to learn about design patterns at university I basically felt like they were trying to rename things to sound Architecture-ey that already had other names.