3 ms·

I disagree. It’s a foundational piece of software engineering literature, even if it is mostly misapplied. If nothing else, it is important to understand the

I disagree. It’s a foundational piece of software engineering literature, even if it is mostly misapplied. If nothing else, it is important to understand the vocabulary presented in GoF. Don’t buy it if you think its going to teach you how to write software better. Do buy it if you might ever get dropped in a OO software base written in the last ~20 years. Because understanding the context of the names is important.

pvg 7y ago
If the OO software base is C++ with UML diagrams from 1997, sure. But even the terms themselves, their contexts of application have drifted quite a bit. The book is by now mostly a historical record of the fascinating Zoroastrian-like effort to give 101 names to two things - 'don't call us, we'll call you' (observer-observable/callback) and 'I'll have my people call your people' (delegation).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 7y ago
I think you can get the vocabulary from online sources now (Norvig's talk alone is a pretty good starting point). I agree about its cultural importance, but if you wrote GoF'y code in 2019, in any language, people would look at you AbstractFactoryFunny.
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  The Java community made it pretty easy to punch down to them with the over use of the vocabulary. But its still valuable when I tell another developer "that's using a flyweight" for them to not look at me blankly. And for what its worth I've used GoF patterns in golang in the last 6 months. No one looked at me funny (to my face at least).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ctchocula 7y ago
  Could you give a link to Norvig's talk? I'd be interested to watch it.
camgunz 7y ago
Arguably it's important the same way The Fountainhead is important: a work based on an outdated and fundamentally wrong idea that a lot of people still think is gospel and would solve everything. Something something know your enemy.

pvg 7y ago

If the OO software base is C++ with UML diagrams from 1997, sure. But even the terms themselves, their contexts of application have drifted quite a bit. The book is by now mostly a historical record of the fascinating Zoroastrian-like effort to give 101 names to two things - 'don't call us, we'll call you' (observer-observable/callback) and 'I'll have my people call your people' (delegation).

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 7y ago

I think you can get the vocabulary from online sources now (Norvig's talk alone is a pretty good starting point). I agree about its cultural importance, but if you wrote GoF'y code in 2019, in any language, people would look at you AbstractFactoryFunny.

kasey_junk 7y ago
The Java community made it pretty easy to punch down to them with the over use of the vocabulary. But its still valuable when I tell another developer "that's using a flyweight" for them to not look at me blankly. And for what its worth I've used GoF patterns in golang in the last 6 months. No one looked at me funny (to my face at least).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ctchocula 7y ago
Could you give a link to Norvig's talk? I'd be interested to watch it.

camgunz 7y ago

Arguably it's important the same way The Fountainhead is important: a work based on an outdated and fundamentally wrong idea that a lot of people still think is gospel and would solve everything. Something something know your enemy.