[layer8]

The main motivation for the concept of design patterns is to give unique names to existing programming patterns, so that when someone says “Strategy pattern”, everyone knows what pattern that refers to, and vice versa that the same pattern isn’t called ten different things. It’s to make communication about program design efficient, by defining a vocabulary of patterns that tend to reoccur, and a common structure for describing them. Not all patterns were successful in that way, but it’s the main idea behind design patterns.

The question of when a using a given pattern is appropriate is orthogonal to that. The fact that a named pattern has been defined doesn’t imply a recommendation to use it across the board. It depends on the context and on design forces, and those change with time and circumstances. Anti-patterns are patterns as well.

It’s a pity that the idea of design patterns ended up (after the pattern language craze faded) being almost exclusively associated with the specific patterns named and described in the GoF book.

[dragonwriter]

> The main motivation for the concept of design patterns is to give unique names to existing programming patterns

No, naming them is not the main purpose, preserving and transmitting knowledge of what they are and what they are useful for, so that people aren't fofced to rediscover solutions to the same problems over and over again. [0] Naming is obviously important for that purpose, but isn't the main goal, but a means of supporting it.

[0] If this sounds like a subset of the purpose of a reusable code library, it is, which is why in languages with sufficient abstraction facilities to allow the generic implementation of a pattern to be reusable, well documented (for the “where and when to use this” piece) code libraries replace documents that have the explanation paired with implementation recipes that one can modify to one’s particular use.

[motorest]

> No, naming them is not the main purpose, preserving and transmitting knowledge of what they are and what they are useful for, so that people aren't fofced to rediscover solutions to the same problems over and over again. [0] Naming is obviously important for that purpose, but isn't the main goal, but a means of supporting it.

Yes, this.

It's as if design patterns represents recurring patterns followed when designing something.

Wouldn't it be silly if architects spent their time shit-talking the silliness of referring to those holes added to walls to be covered by movable panes of glass as "windows"?

Somehow we're here seeing software developers do this sort of nonsense.

[dkarl]

> It’s a pity that the idea of design patterns ended up (after the pattern language craze faded) being almost exclusively associated with the specific patterns named and described in the GoF book

That book is the closest we came to establishing a common language. I remember brushing up on the names of design patterns whenever I had an interview. Ultimately, though, it didn't yield any benefit that the industry is missing now.

Like you said, the fundamental idea behind the book was that consciously naming, cataloging, and studying design patterns would improve communication among programmers. There was also an idea that studying design patterns would give beginning programmers a richer repertoire of programming techniques faster than if they had to figure them out themselves.

Looking back with decades of hindsight, my belief is that awareness and intentional use of design patterns made no difference whatsoever. Some names stuck, and would have anyway. Others didn't, and years of status as official "design patterns" in a book widely studied across the industry couldn't make them. The younger programmers I work with who had no exposure to the GoF book, and for whom "design patterns" is something that dusty old farts used to talk about, use patterns like Flyweight, Proxy, Command, Facade, Strategy, Chain of Responsibility, Decorator, etc. without knowing or needing a name for them, and they communicate amongst themselves just as efficiently as my generation did at the height of the design pattern craze.

In the final analysis, I have never looked at the less experienced programmers around me and thought, "This situation would go faster and smoother if they had studied design patterns." The generation that learned to program after design patterns had faded as an idea learned just as quickly and communicates just as well as the generation that studied them assiduously as junior programmers like I did.

[tmh88j]

> Like you said, the fundamental idea behind the book was that consciously naming, cataloging, and studying design patterns would improve communication among programmers.

> The younger programmers I work with who had no exposure to the GoF book.....and they communicate amongst themselves just as efficiently as my generation

> The generation that learned to program after design patterns had faded as an idea learned just as quickly and communicates just as well as the generation that studied them assiduously as junior programmers like I did.

I've never read GOF so I don't know if they emphasize communication, but I have read and studied many other programming pattern books and communication is low on the list of reasons to learn them in my opinion. Their only purpose for me is to organize code in a way that has been proven to "scale" along with a codebase so that you don't end up with a plate of spaghetti.