|
|
|
|
|
|
by tikhonj
3133 days ago
|
|
|
The point is that patterns shouldn't be patterns in books—they should be abstractions in libraries. You know what's better than having a shared vocabulary you expect everyone to know from a book? Having a shared vocabulary defined in the language and accessible not only to programmers but to the compiler and tooling as well. |
|
|
And how you go about developing those "libraries"?
By writing code using the programming language, isn't it?
Just because C++ and Java and Python and many other programming languages added support for iterators and generators it doesn't make them out to be less of a design pattern. Heck, supporting emcapsulation and composition and information hiding doesn't make a facade pattern, as well as its concept and the semantics of implementing one, magically disappear.
This fundamental fact regarding design patterns is what these self-important fools miss. While they are too busy grandstanding with their criticism, they are actually showing off their ignorance and demonstrating they don't even understand the basic problems solved by design patterns, which are orthogonal to programming languages and their features.