[geezerjay]

> But a pattern in the common usage is some functionality that needs to be communicated outside the core language.

What a truism. Programming languages exist to implement functionalities outside of the core language. So what? Does this mean that software projects aren't designed, and parts of the design may not be shared and integrated in other projects? Those working on software projects still need to discuss design issues, and it's easier and more efficient to assign names to recurring patterns. Those who don't understand this issue and opt to manifest their ignorance by criticizing the existence of patterns are simply fools who try to feign competence by ridiculing the consequences of their own ignorance.

[catnaroek]

Names are useless unless they convey a precise meaning. And, if you can't write down that meaning in a formal system (such as a programming language or mathematics), then it can't be that precise after all.

[geezerjay]

> Names are useless unless they convey a precise meaning.

They do convey a precise meaning. You simply fail to understand it, and even make it your point to complain about something you systematically fail to understand where you stand on your dunning-kruger corner.

[catnaroek]

> They do convey a precise meaning.

Then formalize it. Mathematically.

[geezerjay]

You are aware you're asking to "mathematically formalize" algorithm constructs, right? Either you know nothing about the subject or are trolling this thread in spite of being completely removed from the field.

[catnaroek]

Algorithms are mathematical objects, and they sure as hell can be formalized. Alas, software design “patterns” aren't algorithms. And, so long as they resist formalization, they are non-ideas.

Accusations of trolling are completely unwarranted.