Yeah, I appreciate their intent, but I think they made a mistake in thinking they were near the end of programming history. They really thought they were zeroi

Yeah, I appreciate their intent, but I think they made a mistake in thinking they were near the end of programming history. They really thought they were zeroing in on a lasting, almost ideal style, but it turned out to be a style that was quickly made obsolete by changing languages, programming concepts, processes, and architectures. Also, in software, you're designing for the machine and for other programmers, and it's a lot easier to discover how well a software design performs for machines and colleagues than it is to discover how an architectural design performs for a family, a company, or a society. I do appreciate the intent, but it's hard to see why someone would still be sticking with the design patterns concept twenty years later.