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 scientifi

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.