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.
Well said. I think I'm slowly taking a contradictory point of stand,
which is not what I wanted. I just wanted to say that when I use a
tongue for the same word, it's something much looser. Whether those