Design Patterns == weakness in language

[renox]

David Medlock wrote:
> renox wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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
> 
> 
> In sufficiently powerful language design patterns seem to become 
> unnecessary:
> 
> http://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/


Unnecessary?
The claim is that "16 of 23 patterns have qualitatively simpler 
implementation in Lisp or Dylan than in C++ for at least some uses of 
each pattern" which is a very different that claiming that design 
patterns are unnecessary.

And in fact I think that a book about the design patterns in LISP to 
study the patterns present in LISP would be interesting (because many 
C++ design pattern are invisible in LISP doesn't mean that LISP has not 
some design pattern of its own).

Of course, the more design pattern are invisible due to language 
features, the better.
But that's not the only way to rate a language, it must be also 
readable, maintenable and its implementation efficient.

RenoX

> 
> -DavidM