4 ms·
People are simply giving names for useful patterns that you can use to solve certain classes of problems. You can still write great code without using them and
by sthatipamala 14y ago
People are simply giving names for useful patterns that you can use to solve certain classes of problems. You can still write great code without using them and you can even use them without knowing what they are called.
Giving names to these ideas just makes it easier to communicate common concepts to yourself and others. (imagine how hard it would be if you didn't know the terms "binary tree" or "MAC address").
The existence of these concepts is not an affront to your existing knowledge. Learn them only if you think it helps you.
- Jare 14y agoThe point of the article is that Promises should not be just the name of a general pattern or idea for a common concept, but adhere to a very specific definition. Monads as far as I know are already that, not a pattern but a very specific type of construct. That's one of the reasons I hate the reality of design patterns in modern software: they start off as useful vocabulary, then some specific variants of the pattern hijack the name, and soon it's impossible to communicate clearly as nobody knows which variants have which names and meanings, and vocabulary starts to diverge wildly (see also: MV* patterns).
- brazzy 14y agoThe worst example of that phenomenon is Singleton, which everyone believes is about a static factory method that returns the instance. In fact, that was only an EXAMPLE given in the GoF book for a mechanism to get the singleton instance...
- chii 14y agotrue - to quote richard feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ
- Cogito 14y agoThanks for putting me on to this - I love Feynman but have never seen these talks!