3 ms·
"I don't believe that it's the trilby antiquated. Pretty much everything bases itself off of this book." Hardly. The GoF book is sweet if in this day and age
by martinced 14y ago
"I don't believe that it's the trilby antiquated. Pretty much everything bases itself off of this book."
Hardly.
The GoF book is sweet if in this day and age you're still doing Java/C# but if you're programming in a language like, say, Clojure you can throw about 75% of the GoF book into the trash.
pg said to use a Lisp to beat the average and that's what I'm doing. I'm certainly not accepting the status-quo and considering that, say, the "visitor pattern" is a godsend. Most of these "patterns" only make sense in a non-functional and OO language and are only needed because of missing languages concepts (like the lack of high-order function and/or the lack of real macros).
- chris_wot 14y agoI'll be honest - I'm not terribly familiar with functional programming languages.
- cpeterso 14y agoDesign patterns are, admittedly, workarounds for language deficiencies, but the book is still recent because far more people program in Java and C# than Clojure.
- svachalek 14y agoI don't think Clojure is really object-oriented, and therefore wouldn't recommend the use of object-oriented design patterns at all. But as the dominant paradigm of our age, I think it's worth understanding OOP even if the final decision is to reject it.