Timeline for So, "Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features"? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Sep 26, 2012 at 14:19 | history | edited | Eduard Florinescu | CC BY-SA 3.0 | reformulated |
| Sep 22, 2012 at 15:26 | history | closed | Loki Astari Steven A. Lowe gnat Walter Dynamic | not a real question | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 14:48 | comment | added | SK-logic | @DanielB, of course you can use an OO language for building non-OO models. OOD is a problem, not a lower level OOP. You can build domain-specific models and then encode them in an OO way, it's not a big deal. And this way you won't see that much of the "design patterns". | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 13:38 | comment | added | Daniel B | @SK-logic thanks, and I agree. Unfortunately I'm stuck in OO-land most of the time (we don't always get to decide the technologies applied), and have to coerce the language to fit the problem. I find it to be OK, as long as you do it cleverly. | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 13:01 | comment | added | SK-logic | @DanielB, every specific paradigm will fail, because the reality is much more complex than any paradigm could ever be. Therefore, each and every problem deserves its own, domain specific model and paradigm. | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 12:34 | comment | added | Daniel B | @SK-logic - I think that's what I'm saying in my answer, just in a slightly more positive light. In your opinion, is there a better, non domain-specific paradigm, in general? Specifically, with the language being a suitable model for "everything". | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 12:29 | comment | added | SK-logic | Design patterns are not related to the languages and their deficiencies. They're more about the ugliness of the OO approach in general. Patterns usually appear when a not quite suitable model is used to describe entities that should be better described some other way. | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 11:51 | vote | accept | Eduard Florinescu | ||
| Sep 21, 2012 at 11:33 | answer | added | Daniel B | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 21, 2012 at 1:06 | comment | added | c69 | Would be nice to see some studies, but if you ever used modern functional languages - you already know how obsolete GOF design patterns are, and there is no need for number to prove it more. (Though, they were important in 1990, no doubt). | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 21:52 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @JimmyHoffa: It's not "evangelists" in general. I take issue with Graham's long history of posting ridiculous material that frequently contradicts himself or his sources and trying to twist the whole thing into appearing consistent. No matter what it is you're advocating for, that's a horrible way to go about it, and it's a bit appalling to me that people actually listen to him. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:57 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 22, 2012 at 15:26 | |||||
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:44 | comment | added | Eduard Florinescu | @JimmyHoffa At least did he had intuition, are there confirmation or invalidation of his claims? I think and saw that some of the businesses have this knowledge of what works and not and where and with what people at least in there area, but they tend to keep this very useful information for themselves. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:39 | comment | added | Jimmy Hoffa | I don't tend to disagree with Paul Graham, but @MasonWheeler is right, evangelists are great for many reasons, but not for their objectivity. | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:13 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | It would be a mistake to accept anything that Paul Graham says on the subject of programming languages as "objective and factual." | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 19:51 | history | asked | Eduard Florinescu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |