[swift]

You are right in such a deep sense that I wish I had more than one upvote to give.

This is what people mean when they say a design pattern represents a deficiency in a language: the very fact that it's a design pattern and not, say, a library function is precisely because that language provides no way to abstract it away. Hence, rather than being something that we can turn into a reusable code artifact, the pattern instead becomes a piece of programmer lore, existing only in comments, in design documents or in people's heads.

[AnimalMuppet]

You're thinking wrong. You're thinking like you're going to only use one language ever in your career. You're not (unless you have a very stunted career).

Learn what you're doing, independent of language. Then also learn what you're doing within the language.

[swift]

I strongly disagree that I am "thinking wrong". I think you're saying that design patterns are a useful abstract way of thinking about your problem that you then translate into code using whatever tools are available in the language you're using. I think there are some patterns for which this is true, but the majority don't fall into that category.