Re: What's a pattern?
On 05.08.2009 21:53, Jan Paulsen wrote:
That said, I have to disagree just a bit with you. I agree that the GoF
book by no means exclusive rights for the term, but the word "pattern"
is, as so many words, loosely defined in common use, but has a precise
definition as well, to me, as handed down by books describing the
patterns all their gory detail with sound reflections based on research.
Call me sour, in which case I'm sorry (put in full-stops for me, please).
When you say "precise definition" you make it sound like "scientific"
(for me at least). Although I would concede that GoF and other authors
have vast experience in the domain I am not as sure about the scientific
approach. For me the term "pattern" or "design pattern" is only mildly
precise. And the patterns as defined in "the book" are even less
precise which you can see from the fact that some patterns are quite
similar or at least related that there is not necessarily a clear
distinction.
Often people say "I implemented pattern X here" which can help
communicate the idea but for me the main advantage of patterns is as a
crystallization point for reasoning about interactions between objects.
I tend to find out that I used a pattern X somewhere after the fact
most of the time, i.e. I do not consciously select particular patterns
but rather try to find the constellation that fits the problem best.
I'm just having too much time this evening, I know, and to be sure, I'm
not particularly hung up on the subject - and indeed agree that "if it
works, stop thinking so much about it".
Good approach. :-)
Kind regards
robert
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/