Naming stuff is ok. I understand this. It's done in every field. But calling the "naming of things" a "design pattern" is pretentious. Nobody calls Monads the

Naming stuff is ok. I understand this. It's done in every field. But calling the "naming of things" a "design pattern" is pretentious. Nobody calls Monads the "Monad pattern" and categorizes it as a sub field of "design patterns." It's just like how we abstract the concept of getting into a car and commanding the car under the word "driving." That's fine. What's wrong is if We called it the "driving pattern" and place it an area of study within the automobile field called "design patterns." Imagine if some expert race driver publishes a driving book called "Design patterns" then with an analogy relates it to architecture. Why not just call the book "Driving techniques" and eschew the useless analogy? I'll tell you why the GoF did this. Because "Design patterns" sounds more academic, and the catharsis of realizing the analogy between architecture and programming techniques inflates the perception of what these concepts actually are. In the end these are just programming tricks or techniques.