Talk:Software design pattern

message: As stated in the first paragraph, design pattern is more software engineering artifact than computer science. Or choose the third option: computation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kejia (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title 

message: Maybe in the next couple of days unless someone reasonably disagrees. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the list its own page 

message: The many pages for specific Design Patterns have a chronic excess of examples. Many pages are more than 80% example; at least one pattern has examples in 13 languages with a total of 16 examples! While some examples are different in important ways between families of languages (such as strongly-typed versus dynamically-typed), I have a strong feeling that language advocates are adding me-too examples that detract from explaining the particular pattern. I think Java is probably the best example language for OO design patterns since Java examples won't be cluttered with memory-management code but are strongly typed, so it is clear what inherits what. Full disclosure: My own personal languages of choice are C++ and Python and I am not too familiar with Java. I've changed a few algorithm examples from pseudocode to Python when a working Python example could be almost as easy to understand as pseudocode. However, for OO design patterns, I really think a widely-used strongly-typed garbage-collected language is most appropriate, and that leaves me with Java.
If people feel strongly about having examples in every possible language, I would argue that the examples should be forked off onto separate pages or moved to wikibooks. But certainly 16 examples in 13 languages is not the best way to describe the singleton pattern. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Feel free to remove examples that do not add to the explanation of the pattern. --Antonielly (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: say hello to the world  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.4.76.7 (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and was bold, linking all edits back to this discussion. I'm sure I pissed off a few people, but this really had to be done. I left one example as PHP5 because it was the only concise example. I erased hours and hours of work. Again, if people want to dig it back out, wikibooks is probably a good place for it. Wikipedia should be the tip of the iceburg and shouldn't dwell on language-specifics on these topics unless the specifics are very relevant to the patterns. There are still some pages with long lists of links to implementations in various languages. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, so many code examples added nothing. Also, this is coherent with Wikipedia is not a How-to guide policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That would be 61.115.196.46, whose reversion carries the comment "There was an idiot who removed the examples for all languages other than Java. I had depended on this to create singleton for my projects and only to find they were deleted by one idiot.".  But it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not a programming textbook.  The purpose of these articles should be to explain what design patterns are in general and to explain the specific patterns in general terms, not to provide libraries of source code for cut and paste usage.  I have undone their reversion. RossPatterson (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously. If someone depended upon the examples for their project, they certainly would have understood the Java version and applied it in the language of choice. Unless 61.115.196.46 is just copy/pasting from Wikipedia instead of programming ;-) —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Be bold and move them to Wikibooks! If you do, add links to them here. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you wanted to be bold enough to delete all the examples, you should have also moved them to wiki books. I understand your motivation, but you shouldn't do the destructive work without doing the constructive work in turn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm user 201.253.239.87 now(dynamic IP), I've undone BenFrantzDale's Visitor Pattern revision (Reason: "One is not enough for me (but shorter/minimalistic exampleS would be)" in response to BenFrantzDale's "Removed C++ and D examples. One is enough." and later I found this discussion. I think examples implemented in a language are good for learning, both the language(it shows features about it) and the pattern. I think the examples should have been moved elsewhere(eg. wikibooks) and linked to before removal.  —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wikibooks is probably the best place for these. Knowing the pattern quite well I can't really see any difference between the examples, each has CarElementVisitor and CarElement interfaces/structs and a few classes implementing these. The rest is just baggage which obscure the pattern. I've now copied the examples to wikibooks at . --Salix (talk): 09:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, thanks! That seems like it should keep everyone happy and avoid discarding peoples' hard work. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'd say so.  That looks pretty good to me.  RossPatterson (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I just rephrased the link to say "Visitor implementations in various languages" which reads better to my eyes. I started the same for Singleton, moving all examples I erased earlier. Great progress! —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Can some wise mind add well documented critisms?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.141 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Adding link to wikibooks on Observer pattern page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadie (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous examples 

message: Hi there, I just added
I believe many of the cuncurrent patterns in the table come from this book, it would be nice to add a column for that. Cheers. 122.29.47.35 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done 123.224.241.172 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm, it would be better to have just POSA and then write e.g. "1" or "2" or "no" in the column. I just added MVC and according to Amazon book search, MVC is in POSA1. Stachelfisch (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just added POSA2 

message: As noted on the Multiton "talk" page, Multiton seems to be interchangeable with the "Flyweight Pattern" - the code examples are interchangeable.   It seems as if it's just an alternate name for the same pattern, put into a different category.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.70.1.35 (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Multiton be listed? 

message: These patterns belong here and should also have their own page in wiki! What do you think? more here: Integration Patterns 
:Azbarcea  ⇒ talk Fri Jun 11 09:55:24 UTC 2010  —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enterprise Integration Patterns 

message: The final paragraph of the history section appears to be an advertisement for SOA Design Patterns. I'm not sure that this book even belongs on the page; it certainly doesn't deserve its own paragraph. EvanKroske (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph sounds like an ad 

message: I just refactored the list to remove the gigantic red-block columns that were for books that don't even have a wiki page.  One was PoEAA and that only had two patterns.  The other was PoSA2, which only had concurrency patterns (and the first two columns had no concurrency patterns).  I think what I implemented is the best solution for this, which is 1) to separate out the concurrency patterns into its own table with the primary column being PoSA2, and 2) adding an "Other" column, to list the two references to PoEAA as well as any other books that references that may come along for the patterns that currently have no references.  I also changed the blank column cells in the "Other" column to the n/a Template to give a better overall appearance.  I hope that these changes are helpful. -- Renesis (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New list appearance 

message: Blackboard is not a design pattern but an communication strategy
I suggest to remove this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.12.242 (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern List 

message: I don't understand this criticism:
The idea may not be as new as suggested by the authors: for instance the Model-View-Controller paradigm is an example of a "pattern" which predates the concept of "design patterns" by several years.
As far as I know, none of the authors claim that they were the first to create the concept of design patterns. Rather, they claim to be the first to document it explicitly and create a lexicon to talk about them. A citation here would be very useful. —Preceding signed comment added by 67.248.242.179 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism - Newness 

message: I'm just learning this design pattern and I know nothing about it, but it seems to be a standard for handling things in Flex (or some client) that should be processed after completion of a server process.
:"The Asynchronous Completion Token design pattern efficiently dispatches processing actions within a client in response to the
completion of asynchronous operations invoked by the client."
* http://livedocs.adobe.com/blazeds/1/blazeds_devguide/help.html?content=rpc_httpws_12.html
* http://www1.cse.wustl.edu/~schmidt/PDF/ACT.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilong87 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Asynchronous Completion Token (ACT)? 

message: After reading RAII, it doesn't look like an creational pattern. Can we remove/move it from creation pattern secion?
: I support the removal. RAII is more exactly programming idiom, not a design pattern.--Demonkoryu (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal. An programming idiom is something less versatile than a software design pattern.--Sae1962 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why RAII included in Design Pattern? 

message: Design patterns and TRIZ are similar in that they both define solutions to common problems.  A see also section might be an interesting side road.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billegge (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: Not that I have anything against these references, but why on earth should the presence or not of a particular pattern in these books matter?  There are numerous patterns that were identified before and after these which aren't included.  This section reads like religion, not software engineering.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.62.42 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the publication of GOF little was known on the subject. The authors wanted to provide a standard vocabulary for practitioners to communicate their thoughts and ideas. To begin the process they purposely chose "some of the most important design patterns and present them as a catalog."GOF page 2 (I'm being informal because this is the talk page). By virtue of the number of copies sold and the acceptance by software engineers of these ideas, these book are the acknowledged references on the subject. – rfrankla (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - whether a pattern is in some book or another is completely irrelevant.  It's like listing birds that are found in one particular field guide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.37.167 (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Design Patterns/Code Complete - WTF 

message: Looks like we've created a WP:LINKFARM. I've moved all the links from the article to the list below. Anyone want to go through this mess and see if anything fits WP:EL well enough to include? --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: External links moved to talk

message: The w3sDesign Patterns website contains encyclopedic and accurate material that is relevant to the understanding of the subject.
I would like to add a link to it. 
What do others think about it?
Serv49 (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link  to w3sdesign.com 

message: "Although design patterns have been applied practically for a long time, formalization of the concept of design patterns languished for several years..."
Languished? For several years? I *think* what is meant here is that "Although design patterns have been applied practically for a long time, it was only recently that they were formalized." GeneCallahan (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in 2014, when the original comment here was written, this was not true; formalization of "design patterns" predates the books by some years. They were just not called "design patterns".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.20.64.8 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languish? 

message: In several design patterns the C# examples have been changed to include the text IVSR, e.g. Mediator pattern. What is IVSR? When searching online I don't get any useful results. Could it be that someone is trying to self promote? If so, it needs to be removed. Otherwise it might be useful to explain what IVSR is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.44.173.1 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IVSR 

message: The History section ends with the following claim:"Although design patterns have been applied practically for a long time, formalization of the concept of design patterns languished for several years." The reference given does NOT (as far as I can see from Baroni, et al's .pdf) support the claim. Also, the claim is so vague as to be meaningless. Languished when? between 1700 and 1900? Between 1987 and 1991? Note that Kent Beck's home page (cited in Baroni) at http://c2.com/ppr/about/author/kent.html makes a couple of claims that could verify his contention that he spoke about the use of formal design patterns for building software. But it is certainly not peer reviewed and is imho a dubious claim to primacy (see below); is it sufficiently authoritative to be used as a fact? Seems too self-serving to me (no offense intended).  The principle problem I have is that, obviously, patterns have been used in software at least since machine language was invented (since a language IS a group of patterns). (and of course hardware contains at its core a repeated pattern of circuits...) So, unless there is careful definition of the term which distinguishes it from language (and a number of other methods/procedures/venues/abstractions) I don't see how you can identify the start of it (surely some of the software development houses used formal design templates prior to 1987!) other than to claim that the GoF 1995 paper is the "recognized" start, in general. I recommend that sentence be deleted. It serves no real purpose, afaiks.216.96.76.54 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: According to the definition given by the HillSide group, the definition given (at the top of the wiki page) of a design pattern is incorrect:
http://hillside.net/patterns/50-patterns-library/patterns/222-design-pattern-definition
Note that the HillSide group stands as the governing body of patterns for the software world. Also note the Richard (Dick) Peter Gabriel (aka RPG) (director of the HillSide group, and also known for "worse is better") has analysed the work of Christopher Alexander (from whence patterns came) exhaustively, one example being RPG's book, "Patterns of Software":
http://dreamsongs.com/Books.html
Shkaboinka (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I have added an external link to 
GoF Design Patterns Open Online Learning (w3sdesign.com). Do you agree?
Serv49 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional external link 

message: Patterns that imply mutable state may be unsuited for functional programming languages, some patterns can be rendered unnecessary in languages that have built-in support for solving the problem they are trying to solve, and object-oriented patterns are not necessarily suitable for non-object-oriented languages. 
I find that, as a single sentence, a bit heavy for the lead. — MaxEnt 02:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOG heavy 

message: The Types section has no relevant information and is redundant (having a broken link (4)). 
The Classification section includes all relevant information.
See also the above "types of design patterns" vs "classification" section.
The original Types section:
Design patterns reside in the domain of modules and interconnections. At a higher level there are architectural patterns which are larger in scope, usually describing an overall pattern followed by an entire system.
There are many types of design patterns, for instance https://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns
;Algorithm strategy patterns: Addressing concerns related to high-level strategies describing how to exploit application characteristics on a computing platform.
;Computational design patterns: Addressing concerns related to key computation identification.
;Execution patterns: Which address issues related to lower-level support of application execution, including strategies for executing streams of tasks and for the definition of building blocks to support task synchronization.
;Implementation strategy patterns: Addressing concerns related to implementing source code to support
:#program organization, and
:#the common data structures specific to parallel programming.
;Structural design patterns: Addressing concerns related to global structures of applications being developed.
Vanderjoe (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved the Types section to Talk page. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Software design pattern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229011119/http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/ to http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel this article suffers from a lack of definition.
The title suggests that design patterns are a general notion in software development. I have only ever seen them as an practice that is specific to object-oriented software, introduced by Gamma et al.'s book. Some design patterns, such as MVC, existed prior to the book, but I've never seen the idea applied to other types of software. If it has been done, and if the term design pattern is actually applied in such cases, they are certainly the exception.
We do have all kinds of established design patterns in software development that aren't tied to object orientation, such as client-server architecture, multi-tier architecture, dataflow architecture and pipelines, message passing, concurrent programming with shared memory and IPC primitives, software threads, software interrupts, etc. etc., but none of these are actually known by the name design pattern, as far as I know. The present article defines the term as if such things are included, and then goes on to discuss exclusively the specific concept introduced by Gamma et al. This is confusing and inconsistent.
Either the article should limit itself to discussing design patterns as known in object-oriented software development, and the title and introductory paragraph should be changed to reflect that; or it should at least start out by discussing them, before continuing to discuss how design patterns are applied in non-object-oriented software (which the present text doesn't even mention the existence of).
Do you agree? Which approach would you prefer? Rp (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and scope