5 ms·
How about this: Design patterns have flopped because many if not most of them have proven not to be the universal computer science gems they were touted as. R
by mjw 16y ago
How about this:
Design patterns have flopped because many if not most of them have proven not to be the universal computer science gems they were touted as.
Rather, they've proven to be:
* Stock workarounds for the overly restrictive type system of a particular language X
* Patterns which in a more powerful language would be a language feature (or trivially abstracted into a small chunk of library code using the language's existing facilities for abstraction) -- but in language X, require so much boilerplate for each invocation, that the boilerplate merits a special name.
(Where for X, substitute mostly Java :)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- brazzy 16y agoEven in Java, most patterns can be implemented just fine in a small chunk of library code using the language's existing facilities for abstraction. I think the relative popularity of design patterns in the Java community has less to do with the verbosity of the language than with historical accident (design patterns became popular at around the same time as Java).
- hga 16y agoWell, the GoF book was published in the same year as Java's unveiling to the world (1995) so X was C++, but of course today it's indeed mostly Java.