Talk:Software design pattern: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:13, 11 November 2022

Revision as of 08:40, 3 February 2023

Line 77:

I'm not sure about considering encapsulation, inheritance, and exceptions to be design patterns. Encapsulation and inheritance are general directions for structuring code more than they are patterns, re-usable elements of software. They are philosophies more than patterns or blueprints. Patterns (not limited to computer science) must be unanimously recognizable. For example, an architectural design's use of the golden ratio is non-disputable. I've never seen "fundamental patterns" used anywhere outside of that cited college lecture presentation and the book it cites, Barbara Liskov's "Program Development in Java". It strikes me that the author wished to coin a new term; perhaps someone who read it can provide another opinion. My [[http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&q=%22fundamental+pattern%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=%22fundamental+pattern%22&aqi=&fp=1mZ_-PL2Zjc|Google query]] yielded few relevant results. Has the term 'fundamental pattern' gained community acceptance or popular usage? And if so, do—and why do—encapsulation and inheritance qualify? Any thoughts?

Also, the page [[Fundamental pattern]] lists [[Proxy pattern]], [[Facade pattern]], and [[Composite pattern]]; all three of which are listed as structural patterns in [[Design pattern (computer science)|this page]]; and it doesn't list inheritance or encapsulation.

[[ User:dmyersturnbull | &nbsp;<fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">dm</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#555555;">yers</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">t</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#555555;">urnbull</fontspan>&nbsp; ]] ⇒ [[User_talk:Dmyersturnbull|talk]] 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:If there are no objections, I'll place the ''neologism'' template:

:{{neologism}}

:for the reason cited above. Also, if its contradiction to [[Fundamental pattern]] is not resolved, I think adding contradict-other is warranted:

:{{Contradict-other|[[Fundamental pattern]]}}

:[[ User:dmyersturnbull | &nbsp;<fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">dm</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#555555;">yers</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#005000;">t</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#555555;">urnbull</fontspan>&nbsp; ]] ⇒ [[User_talk:Dmyersturnbull|talk]] 06:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would remove everything referring to "fundamental patterns". They simply don't belong. "Design Patterns" (ISBN-10: 0201633612) is 15 years old and surely one of the seminal works. It's still in print. It catalogs ~15 patterns from factory to vistor. That's what the term normally encompasses and what wikipedia should document.