Ben Finney wrote: > Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> writes: > >> DrKJam <drkjam <at> gmail.com> writes: >>> netaddr employs a simple variant of the GoF Strategy design pattern (with >> added Python sensibility). >> >> It would be nice if you could avoid employing this kind of acronyms >> without explaining them. Not everybody drinks the design pattern >> kool-aid. > > A pity, since the entire point of Design Patterns is to give us a > vocabulary of terms to use that enable these concepts to be communicated > *without* continually re-defining them. To that extent, then, they fail > their purpose.
My experience with them the named design patterns is that: 1. An awful lot of them seem to be just about working around some of the limitations of static typing, a lack of functions as first class objects, or are in some other way a lot less useful outside a C++/Java environment. 2. Others are used intuitively by a lot of developers that have never even heard of any of the GoF authors or the Design Patterns book (the Adapter pattern being the most common example that occurs to me). I still think most people (even those that primarily work in dynamic languages) can learn something by reading it, but following their examples too slavishly creates evils of its own (especially when attempting to apply patterns that don't really suit the language being used). When the inappropriate use of named patterns runs counter to the accepted idioms of a language is when I see terms like the "design pattern kool-aid" mentioned above getting thrown around :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
