On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Andrew J Bromage wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:27:21AM +0100, John Hughes wrote: > > > There are patterns of that sort in our programs, which we would probably > > rather call design techniques, which aren't so easily captured by a > > higher-order function definition. > > As a matter of interest, _why_ would we rather call them "design > techniques" than "design patterns"? Is it just an aversion to > buzzwords, or are they fundamentally different? >
No particular reason, maybe, except that the buzzword isn't established in our community. And no wonder, since we have no catalogue of Haskell "design patterns" -- we're not even completely sure what they are! If there were such a catalogue, and it became popular among Haskell users, and it called the entries design patterns, then that would establish the term. One difference which I see between a "technique" and a "pattern" is that there is a uniform and somewhat formal way of describing patterns: thought has been put into what you should document when you describe a pattern. Maybe we should stick to vaguer terms such as "technique" until we've put in the corresponding thought! John _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
