That may well be true. My concerns are primarily pedagogical. I took a quick look at the work you mentioned and most of it seems to be considerably higher-leve

That may well be true. My concerns are primarily pedagogical. I took a quick look at the work you mentioned and most of it seems to be considerably higher-level than the GoF patterns. Somewhat counterintuitively, that makes it less abstract. (Example chosen at random: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/lf.pdf http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/lf.pdf) That's a good thing. It means there's more meat on the bones. The kind of patterns I'm critiquing are the one-level-up-from-language-constructs kind, which (I guess we agree) are different. There seem to be some good papers in that collection. I might even forgive them the UML!