5 ms·

> Doesn't english and vocabulary fill this space? Yes, and no. English doesn't by default fill the space of words that are shorthands for domain specific ideas

> Doesn't english and vocabulary fill this space? Yes, and no. English doesn't by default fill the space of words that are shorthands for domain specific ideas. The practitioners coin the terms. > You don't find carpentry workers referring to domain specific vocabulary as design patterns. Every field has its conventions, shorthands, patterns, etc. They might not call them design patterns. Lawyers, for example, have tons and tons of terms that are shorthand for complex concepts, and you wouldn't understand them without first studying them, even if they are strictly made of otherwise mundane English words. For example, "strict scrutiny", or "reasonable person".

neonological 6y ago
>English doesn't by default fill the space of words that are shorthands for domain specific ideas. That was a rhetorical question. I beg to differ. English does fill the space of all kinds of of domain specific areas. Practitioners may invent new vocabulary to use within the English language but in the end they are still using English. In fact even when you talk about "Design patterns" You are still using "English" it's inescapable. I'm saying the extra layer of "design patterns" as a "field" is not necessary. No other "domain" is snobbish enough to call their techniques "patterns" and group them as "design patterns" and fill the field with all this jargon like "strategy pattern." It's just programming techniques, carpentry techniques and the like.