[skydhash]

A lot of patterns only make sense in languages like C# or Java, which are inflexible by design. You have two hierarchical trees (inheritance and namespaces) that you have to work around. With something simpler like C, Go, JavaScript, you don’t have those obstacles and a solution can be way simpler to implement.

[ssrc]

Some patterns in the GoF book only apply to C++/Java as they were in 1994, but I don't see any reason why other languages would have no useful patterns. The Linux kernel (C) is full of patterns for example.

Funny thing, Peter Norvig also has this position, that patterns only apply to languages like Java, but his book on Lisp and the Python course he had on Udemy (?) are super-pattern-y.

[liampulles]

I went from Java to Go for my last job. I think there is a reduction in pattern stuff but there are still many (at least in my project).

Java is kind of "begging" for patterns IMO, with all its static package protected final stuff and beliefs around encapsulation. Go is plainer, which is to its benefit.

[mrsmrtss]

How do optional inheritance and namespaces (which you can ignore to use a single global namespace) make a language inflexible? If anything, these traits make your language more powerful, not less.

[richardlblair]

Somewhat true - I usually find that in these languages the patterns are there they are just less obvious.