4 ms·

>Mathematicians aren't building/designing things all day long so they don't need this word. Not true, they build proofs. Within proofs there are many many comm

>Mathematicians aren't building/designing things all day long so they don't need this word. Not true, they build proofs. Within proofs there are many many common techniques, aka "patterns." Either way you seem to imply that "patterns" are for people who "build" things, which isn't emphasized in your definition below: >"A pattern language is an organized and coherent set of patterns, each of which describes a problem and the core of a solution that can be used in many ways within a specific field of expertise. The term was coined by architect Christopher Alexander and popularized by his 1977 book A Pattern Language." The problem with the above definition is that English vocabulary already communicates what a pattern does perfectly fine. What is the point coming up with an over complex name and postfixing all of these things with "pattern?" It's basically a redundant concept. In fact, my communication with you at this very moment is employing many many common patterns. Check the pattern in the previous sentence "many many." I call it the double emphasis pattern and I've used that pattern twice in this reply. I'll write more about it in my book on Design patterns for English communication.

kthejoker2 6y ago
I think the simplest response I can give to this is the "above defition" is of a pattern language, not a pattern. A pattern language is an organized and coherent set of patterns. They are developed holistically to work in relation with each other. They're designed to be combined together - as sequences, in parallel, as contrasts - and also to be as "platform-agnostic" as possible. For example, Alexander's book helpfully includes a ton of points on how to combine the various patterns in the book, and a healthy "see also:" section to get alternative ideas or just areas of overlap between them all. And the patterns in the book are about the physical, environmental, and social needs of humans (the problems) and how they can be met trough architecture and infrastructure. It's very distinct from just "a list of patterns." They're always described in service to the whole, in relation to the others. For the English language, I would say Aristotle's Rhetoric is closest in spirit; whereas Elements of Style is clearly more a "list of patterns" Other "pattern language"-style books I can think of are The Prince by Machiavelli; Capital by Marx; 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Ries and Trout; Diffusion of Innovations by Rogers; and High Output Management by Andrew Grove. I would also say the original C2 Wiki comes closest to creating a "bottoms-up" pattern language. Here's the entry on A Pattern Language - https://wiki.c2.com/?PatternLanguage https://wiki.c2.com/?PatternLanguage But these books aren't explicitly set up as pattern language books - nor are many others. Very few books (not even the GoF) are put together so well and as comprehensively as A Pattern Language. It's truly a masterpiece.
- neonological 6y ago
  I think that's where your bias lies. If you think a book is a masterpiece no amount of evidence can flip that bias. You post basically declares every scientific or academic or professional field as "pattern languages." Then you conclude to say.that there are books much more well put together then the gof book. I agree, like pretty much every axiomatic math book that proves each theorem starting from base axioms is more elegantly put together than GoF. And none of these books have the pretentiousness to call what they're doing a "pattern language." The concept is unecessary and is only used by books that are actually very informal. The Gof book is essentially just "oop programming tricks" retitled to "design patterns" to sound more academic when in fact its so far from academia, most schools don't teach it as part of foundational computer science. Also all the books you defined are informal and opinionated. Especially capital by marx. None of those books come close to the rigor of "pattern languages" established by even a basic math book on number theory.

kthejoker2 6y ago

I think the simplest response I can give to this is the "above defition" is of a pattern language, not a pattern. A pattern language is an organized and coherent set of patterns. They are developed holistically to work in relation with each other. They're designed to be combined together - as sequences, in parallel, as contrasts - and also to be as "platform-agnostic" as possible. For example, Alexander's book helpfully includes a ton of points on how to combine the various patterns in the book, and a healthy "see also:" section to get alternative ideas or just areas of overlap between them all. And the patterns in the book are about the physical, environmental, and social needs of humans (the problems) and how they can be met trough architecture and infrastructure. It's very distinct from just "a list of patterns." They're always described in service to the whole, in relation to the others. For the English language, I would say Aristotle's Rhetoric is closest in spirit; whereas Elements of Style is clearly more a "list of patterns" Other "pattern language"-style books I can think of are The Prince by Machiavelli; Capital by Marx; 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Ries and Trout; Diffusion of Innovations by Rogers; and High Output Management by Andrew Grove. I would also say the original C2 Wiki comes closest to creating a "bottoms-up" pattern language. Here's the entry on A Pattern Language - https://wiki.c2.com/?PatternLanguage https://wiki.c2.com/?PatternLanguage But these books aren't explicitly set up as pattern language books - nor are many others. Very few books (not even the GoF) are put together so well and as comprehensively as A Pattern Language. It's truly a masterpiece.

neonological 6y ago
I think that's where your bias lies. If you think a book is a masterpiece no amount of evidence can flip that bias. You post basically declares every scientific or academic or professional field as "pattern languages." Then you conclude to say.that there are books much more well put together then the gof book. I agree, like pretty much every axiomatic math book that proves each theorem starting from base axioms is more elegantly put together than GoF. And none of these books have the pretentiousness to call what they're doing a "pattern language." The concept is unecessary and is only used by books that are actually very informal. The Gof book is essentially just "oop programming tricks" retitled to "design patterns" to sound more academic when in fact its so far from academia, most schools don't teach it as part of foundational computer science. Also all the books you defined are informal and opinionated. Especially capital by marx. None of those books come close to the rigor of "pattern languages" established by even a basic math book on number theory.