EJP wrote:I also bought that one somewhere in the late 90's. I still don't know why, I don't use documented patterns and yet I manage to produce solutions to any problem thrown at me in a timely fashion that my colleagues seem to be able to read and use without problems. My experience has always been that you start to adapt the problem to the pattern in stead of the other way around.
The book I am referring to is the original: Gamma, Helm, Johnson, & Vlissides, Design Patterns, Addison Wesley 1995. Your book should cite that, and if it doesn't it is worthless.
and also as someone who was peripherally involved in the Design Pattern wars of the late 1990s.In what role I wonder?
It's a long story. In one of the secondary DP books, which I think I still have somewhere, there is a pattern called something like Type Object, described in the usual overcooked way in several pages of complete blather, along with Partipants, Forces, etc etc etc.
I was on a couple of DP mailing lists at the time, and I pointed out on one of them that, as the first page of the pattern actually said, this was nothing more than relational 3rd normal form, already described quite adequately already by C.J. Date in a sentence or two, expanded, with no additonal meaning, into these several pages of meta language, mostly incomprehensible, and morphed into a form that had zero practical application. I headed the message 'Type Object Considered Hilarious'.
A short but vigorous correspondence ensured, in which of course the original authors considered themselves mortally insulted, but the killer was that at the end of it I was asked to submit my objections to the mailing list in the form of a design pattern.
At that point I belatedly realized that DP had gone the way of every other fad I have ever seen in computing, and become a separate religion of its own, with zero connection to reality, or to its original purpose, which in this case was to classify existing practice, not create a self-referential belief system.
I declined in a message that said I didn't feel obliged to recapitulate my already stated objections in any official syntax when they were already perfectly comprehensible as is.
I added that the solution to every problem wasn't actually to just add another design pattern, especially in refutation of preceding ones. No reply to this.
You can probably find it all somewhere on the Net.
Having now had my standard whinge, several times over, I will say that the original GoF DP book was valuable in two ways: it taught me a couple of tricks I didn't know, like the Visitor pattern, and it introduced standard names that we are still using, such as Factory, Facade, Decorator, etc. Have a look at CORBA for something that badly needed this kind of standard vocabulary, but was just invented a few years too early to benefit.
EJP wrote:Ah, that is indeed correct! The book did have some use.
and it introduced standard names that we are still using, such as Factory, Facade, Decorator, etc.