<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx</link><description>Jeff Atwood has some issues with the idea of Design Patterns. His issues are basically: People use design patterns when they could use a simpler solution. Recurring patterns indicate a place where the language is weak. Read his post for the details. I</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#3820271</link><pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:54:39 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:3820271</guid><dc:creator>Dion Dock</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I think what Jeff is trying to say is that people see the patterns and think &amp;quot;this is way cool&amp;quot; and then try to make them the hammer that solves every problem nail. &amp;nbsp;In other words, the question becomes &amp;quot;which pattern applies&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;what's the best solution&amp;quot;?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Peter Norivg demonstrated that &amp;quot;16 of 23 patterns&amp;quot; &amp;nbsp;were either simpler or didn't need to exist in a language like Lisp or Dylan way back in 1998, &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://norvig.com/design-patterns/"&gt;http://norvig.com/design-patterns/&lt;/a&gt;. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The bigger issue is that it's the Blub paradox: if you haven't tried another language, you don't know what you're missing. &amp;nbsp;For example, a &amp;quot;foreach&amp;quot; iterator can remove a lot of for/while loops or at least make the current ones more robust (no off-by-one errors). &amp;nbsp;But if you don't know there is such a thing, you won't miss it. &amp;nbsp;Sure, the pattern solves the problem, but there might be a more elegant way to do it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another thought: if a language has a ton of patterns, perhaps it's not very powerful.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>More required reading: AntiPatterns</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#3841079</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:23:17 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:3841079</guid><dc:creator>Reed Me</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Steve thinks every coder should read the classic GoF &amp;quot;Design Patterns&amp;quot;: Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>More required reading: AntiPatterns</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#3841795</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:30:09 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:3841795</guid><dc:creator>Noticias externas</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Steve thinks every coder should read the classic GoF &amp;amp;quot;Design Patterns&amp;amp;quot;: Are Design Patterns&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#3843946</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:44:39 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:3843946</guid><dc:creator>prakash</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Only when you have time, resources, long term vision will you think of patterns. Otherwise you can follow only one patern GIGO (Garbage in Garbage Out).&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#3859024</link><pubDate>Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:45:54 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:3859024</guid><dc:creator>MeetGeorgeJetson</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm not a perfect programmer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I can admit to writing code that I realize, in hindsight, was over-engineered. &amp;nbsp;I can also admit to refactoring to elegant solutions, but in hindsight asking myself, why didn't I see that sooner? &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patterns help me both when I use them and when I decide they're overkill. &amp;nbsp;Hopefully, I will continue to improve my aim.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Are Design Patterns A Bad Idea?</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#4135652</link><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:17:51 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4135652</guid><dc:creator>ObjectiveCoder</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Jeff should answer the following fundamental question:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What programming construct does almost every Design Pattern have in common with each other ? Answer: Polymorphism&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How can a polymorphic behavior be made &amp;quot;simpler&amp;quot; ? I guess that he prefers writing large blocks of procedural if-then-else statements&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>GOF Patterns, Design, Conferences, and the Keeping Up Category</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/steverowe/archive/2007/07/11/are-design-patterns-a-bad-idea.aspx#4280398</link><pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:12:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:4280398</guid><dc:creator>Loosely Coupled Human Code Factory</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm starting a new category. It's going to merely include quick blurbs from your's truly and links...&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>