I suppose we can ask GoF authors if they needed credibility boost from an obscure (certainly in CS circles) architect. The quote does not make any coherent sen

I suppose we can ask GoF authors if they needed credibility boost from an obscure (certainly in CS circles) architect. The quote does not make any coherent sense, it's a sentiment decorated with buzzwords. As I said, if Alan Kay wants to hand wave CS utopia, heck, the man has certainly earned it, and his woowoo talk is actually intellectually far more densely packed and nutritious. Btw, I said nothing about patterns, OO, good, or bad. We also disagree about portability of concepts and viewpoints across disciplines. I studied architecture in grad school and engineering before that. And learning C/S via vocational route I found my EE and architecture background was beneficial and definitely informed my architectural thinking in software. I merely said you can not have a one-to-one mapping. Here an example: modular thinking -> engineering, architecture, software. But "Pattern Language" on its own is not fully informative of conceptual concerns of software architecture. That was the point.