Re: How is this "pattern" called?
Arne Vajh??j wrote:
Gene Wirchenko wrote:
With the amount of noise over patterns though, you would think
that many people need the patterns. For me, supporting an in-house
application, there is no or little need.
Or you have not realized the need.
Or both of you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.
I would bet that both of you use "patterns" in the larger, non-buzzwordy
sense, that is, you recognize the shape of structures in your model and can
exploit common idioms for common shapes. Both of you appear to be competent
programmers from what this newsgroup shows, and programmers become competent
only if they have that skill.
The argument is over "patterns" in the GoF sense, a highly bureaucratized,
overly-verbose and religiously canonical set of labels and formats to describe
them. But even amidst all the sturm und drang over the latter kind of
patterns, they provide value in a common terminology and informal use. So when
we discuss Visitor or Singleton, we all know what we mean. ("We" being
competent programmers. One occasionally sees posters here who are less
I favor having a library of common pattern labels to facilitate both
communication and program design. No one should think that the list in
GoF-land is exhaustive, and certainly not mandatory. Just because you haven't
used one of the patterns from the Official List doesn't mean you don't need
patterns, or don't use them.
The point of the Official List is to identify some (only some!) of the most
common patterns and get us used to thinking in terms of patterns, not to be
set upon an altar and have thurifers waved at them.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.