4 ms·
Software Design Patterns are an Anti-Pattern. They could be used as a terminology for commonly recurring patterns. But ask your colleagues about the difference
by legulere 7y ago
Software Design Patterns are an Anti-Pattern.
They could be used as a terminology for commonly recurring patterns. But ask your colleagues about the difference of a facade an adapter and a decorator and you will see that in reality they are useless for that. The chosen names are just too generic to have a precise memorable meaning.
People think they can use it as an abstraction, but for most patterns it’s not abstracting in a way that programming languages support. The only thing I can do with an adapter is add it to the class name and feel intelligent. People tend to do that less to real abstractions (List instead of SequentialIteratorFactory or IteratableMonad).
The most offensive thing people are doing with design patterns is trying to use them like bricks to build code. You will end up with code that’s 90% boilerplate and 10% actual logic strewn all over the place.
- Nvorzula 7y ago> The most offensive thing people are doing with design patterns is trying to use them like bricks to build code. You will end up with code that’s 90% boilerplate and 10% actual logic strewn all over the place. This is absolutely one of my greatest pet peeves with the developers I have been interacting with the past several years. It is almost as though they ignore all functional and non-function requirements set forth before them, instead placing a priority on having no fewer than four `AbstractSingletonFactoryAdapor`s. The result is the complete abuse, and misuse, of these patterns that is just impossible to follow and almost always incorrect (Really? A singleton? Do you REALLY think that there will only ever be one logged in user during the life of the JVM? Or did that just HAPPEN to be the case while you were sitting at your desk pounding this out?).