4 ms·

Nobody ever claimed that GoF is a complete set of patterns. It is just a subset of patterns from infinite variety of possible solutions to problems.

howinteresting 4y ago
A very good argument is that the GoF stuff should be looked at with suspicion because they didn't bother nailing down the fundamentals.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  I actually have the fricking book on my bookshelf. The first paragraph on the first page of the book starts: "This book isn't an introduction to object-oriented technology or design. Many books already do a good job of that. This book assumes you are reasonably proficient in at least one object-oriented programming language, and you should have some experience in object-oriented design as well." At no point it claims to be any kind of software development handbook or complete set of patterns or teaching fundamentals of anything. It is just a collection of "hey guys, see, we figured out this might be useful for ya!".
jerf 4y ago
Nobody should have ever claimed the GoF is a complete set of patterns. The GoF themselves vigorously said it was not intended to be. But it has definitely been raised up to The Official Set Of Design Patterns by a lot of people. I've lost count of the number of languages I've seen someone write about "design patterns" in, and what they mean is they show a complete ported implementation of all the GoF design patterns, including all OO quirks, even in languages where they are manifestly inappropriate, including dynamically typed languages (where many of them apply, but are optimally designed quite differently to account for the huge differences in the type system) and functional languages (when many of the GoF patterns just dissolve into the language, but a whole other set of patterns is necessary).
- twawaaay 4y ago
  It is the same old story, later repeated with agile manifesto, REST, and so on. They became misunderstood and abused by enough people that the terms stopped meaning anything useful in public space. When I hear a company say "we're Agile, we are doing REST" etc. I just roll my eyes and think to myself: unlikely. Over the years I figured out the right way to use all of these things: as resources with solutions to frequent problems. So no, I will not preach GoF or DDD or CQRS or Agile or REST or anything else, but I will make sure I understood each one very well on many levels and apply the lessons to my projects.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    One interesting point is how many think there is Java code on GoF.
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      Wow, just came up with fantastic interview question (just kidding). But, yeah, this is a good point. I interview senior engineers (mostly Java) a lot and I work with a lot of people like managers, tech leads, architects and senior engineers and I have the feeling that almost nobody has ever actually read any of the things that they are talking about.

howinteresting 4y ago

A very good argument is that the GoF stuff should be looked at with suspicion because they didn't bother nailing down the fundamentals.

twawaaay 4y ago
I actually have the fricking book on my bookshelf. The first paragraph on the first page of the book starts: "This book isn't an introduction to object-oriented technology or design. Many books already do a good job of that. This book assumes you are reasonably proficient in at least one object-oriented programming language, and you should have some experience in object-oriented design as well." At no point it claims to be any kind of software development handbook or complete set of patterns or teaching fundamentals of anything. It is just a collection of "hey guys, see, we figured out this might be useful for ya!".

jerf 4y ago

Nobody should have ever claimed the GoF is a complete set of patterns. The GoF themselves vigorously said it was not intended to be. But it has definitely been raised up to The Official Set Of Design Patterns by a lot of people. I've lost count of the number of languages I've seen someone write about "design patterns" in, and what they mean is they show a complete ported implementation of all the GoF design patterns, including all OO quirks, even in languages where they are manifestly inappropriate, including dynamically typed languages (where many of them apply, but are optimally designed quite differently to account for the huge differences in the type system) and functional languages (when many of the GoF patterns just dissolve into the language, but a whole other set of patterns is necessary).

twawaaay 4y ago
It is the same old story, later repeated with agile manifesto, REST, and so on. They became misunderstood and abused by enough people that the terms stopped meaning anything useful in public space. When I hear a company say "we're Agile, we are doing REST" etc. I just roll my eyes and think to myself: unlikely. Over the years I figured out the right way to use all of these things: as resources with solutions to frequent problems. So no, I will not preach GoF or DDD or CQRS or Agile or REST or anything else, but I will make sure I understood each one very well on many levels and apply the lessons to my projects.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  One interesting point is how many think there is Java code on GoF.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    Wow, just came up with fantastic interview question (just kidding). But, yeah, this is a good point. I interview senior engineers (mostly Java) a lot and I work with a lot of people like managers, tech leads, architects and senior engineers and I have the feeling that almost nobody has ever actually read any of the things that they are talking about.