The critique of GoF presented is superficial. The main difference being GoF's 'how' against Alexander's 'what' doesn't come from GoF's misunderstanding of Alexa

The critique of GoF presented is superficial. The main difference being GoF's 'how' against Alexander's 'what' doesn't come from GoF's misunderstanding of Alexander's original work. It comes from a different role of architecture of a building versus an architecture of a computer program. It's easier to say about Alexander's pattern that it provides an answer for a 'what' question because the building's architecture is something that people interact with directly with all their senses. Hence a pattern like "159. LIGHT ON TWO SIDES OF EVERY ROOM" ( http://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/apl159/apl159.htm http://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/apl159/apl159.h... ) seems like an end in itself when compared to eg. a iterator pattern, which obviously always will be described merely as a mean to some more general functionality of the application. The truth is, "LIGHT ON TWO SIDES OF EVERY ROOM" is also a mean - a mean to making a room more bright, pleasant and friendly . If it feels more substantial than an iterator pattern, it's just because we directly interact with an architecture of a building in contrast to the architecture of a software, which is always hidden. There's nothing wrong with GoF, it just follows from the essential quality of a computer software.