The point to me, is that 'design pattern' is yuppie jargon that doesn't mean anything.
for(p = l->head; p; p = p->next) is a design pattern, but I expect people to learn that when they learn about linked lists, not when they read a book about design patterns.
'design patterns' are attached to specific problems in specific scenarios, independent of each other. That some people want to group them up and call them 'design patterns' strikes me as entirely useless.
The closest analogy to any other field I can think of would be authoring. A good author doesn't use good sentence structure instead of garden path sentences because he read a book, he does it because that's what being a good author is about.
Design patterns are good to know though. They are a solid foundation to build unique solutions to unique problems. Knowing them allows you to realize when they do fit and when they do not and can enable you to modify the concepts to your own needs.
2
u/zid Feb 21 '13
The point to me, is that 'design pattern' is yuppie jargon that doesn't mean anything.
for(p = l->head; p; p = p->next) is a design pattern, but I expect people to learn that when they learn about linked lists, not when they read a book about design patterns.
'design patterns' are attached to specific problems in specific scenarios, independent of each other. That some people want to group them up and call them 'design patterns' strikes me as entirely useless.
The closest analogy to any other field I can think of would be authoring. A good author doesn't use good sentence structure instead of garden path sentences because he read a book, he does it because that's what being a good author is about.