Design Patterns == weakness in language

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

renox wrote:
> Brad Anderson wrote:
> 
>> This might be a bit OT, but I often wonder if D is going to succeed 
>> C/C++/Java
>> long-term given that it's not abstracting away a majority of known design
>> patterns.  Or, maybe that's just D 2.0 and we need to be patient.  <g>
>>
>> http://newbabe.pobox.com/~mjd/blog/2006/09/11/#design-patterns
>>
>> BA
> 
> 
> Bah, an over-simplistic article with great claims and little substance.
> 
> Some design pattern are caused by flaw in the original language, in 
> other language they will be invisible, that's quite obvious..
> 
> But claiming that *all* design pattern comes from language flaws as the 
> author imply??
> 
> Uh? Show me the proof: big claims need strong proofs!
> 
> And in the article, there is no such proof, not even a beginning:
> a waste of electrons.
> 
> Regards,
> RenoX

Agreed.  For a simple example, even the classic and uber-common Singleton pattern should 
not, IMHO, be part of the language itself.  Why?  Because I'd rather implement it myself, 
so I can choose which Singleton style suits my particular purpose.  Do I want a true 
singleton, or a namespace, or a deferred/managed singleton, or selective singletons, etc.

Pointer magic patterns, also, are something I'd rather get my hands dirty with.  That way 
I can tailor the magic to my specific goal.  Chances are that, if I'm using magic to begin 
with, I'm shooting for levels of optimization I can't get without hand tooling.

And so forth.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls