Re:Obligatory Anti-Pattern Viewpoint
on
Design Patterns
·
· Score: 1
Wow you are very mixed up with your terminology (and in your thinking in general).
Sure SQL as a declarative relational language is quite powerful for certain tasks, but by itself it isn't a general purpose programming language (for a start it's associated with a permanent data store, it doesn't have any I/O etc). There are also computation tasks which are very difficult to do in it (try maintaining recurse data structures such as trees).
So you clump it together with 'procedural' programming and then mention something vague about about "formulas instead of patterns".
> IOW, "formulas" versus "patterns".
> Formulas are not only more compact, but don't
> clutter up the larger-scale structure of the
> code. (LISP fans say similar things about GOF
> patterns, I would note).
The concept of a pattern is as applicable to procedural or relational programming as it is to object oriented design (or architecture or whatever other design problems you have). It just happens that the GOF book is about OO design patterns.
What do you mean by 'formulas'? Do you mean declarative statements (like SQL) versus imperative (for loops etc)? Your statement is meaingless to me.
> Thus, you are not only reinventing a (halfass)
> database with GOF, but reinventing an
> out-of-style one on top of that. A double-whammy
> no-no in my book.
The OO design patterns in GOF are pretty fundamental and the problems they solve have been around forever. eg. database 'triggers' are an example of the observer pattern. Most aren't applicable to relational model by itself at all (eg. facade, factory etc)...
On your website you map the OO patterns into the database equivalents, but it's ridiculous, all you are doing it mapping classes to tables, objects to rows, attributes to fields. So what? This isn't relational programming! You still need procedural code on top of it to implement the pattern, and then you are just simulating OO programming with procedures.
> The GOF Patterns movement is mostly a rehash
> of technology and philosophy that died in the
> early 70's, as variations of Codd's relational
> model proved superior
And Codd's relational model was influenced by earlier research on knowledge representation in AI frames and semantic networks etc, inheritance in object orientation was also used in frames.
Patterns are new because the give a name to design problems that previously had no names. Most of the OO design patterns are not applicable for relational programming but there is no reason to stop you from creating relational SQL patterns.
The world of computer programming seems to be getting more 'pluralistic' by the day. In certain areas there is convergence but in general the number of technologies and methologies seem to be increasing at an alarming rate - almost impossible to keep up with.
Most experienced programmers realize there is no 'silver bullet' to the problem of engineering software, in most cases many sets of different methodologies and programming technologies could be combined to produce a working system, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
The paper argues that this shouldn't be seen as a 'failure' of software engineering (and more generally computer science) but rather as something once realized can result in more pragmatic approaches to building software, such as using methodologies and tools which support multiple approaches (like XP and Perl). Mix and match styles that most suit, like people mix and match their beliefs in post-modern society.
People often say a variant of this to me. "If you don't like X why do you live here?". Because I have my friends and my life here, and other things that make up for X!
It seems to me a huge portion of the Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that criticizing any aspect of the country makes you 'anti-American' and not deserving to live here. It is so ironic because wouldn't someone who really loves their country want to fix what is wrong instead of abandoning it?
Someone once told me that Americans love their country in a blind unquestioning way that people love their mother - the more I live here the more I am inclined to agree.
> Does ANYONE really care what an editor of a newspaper thinks?
The NY Times editorials can be enormously influential. Supposedly the first NY Times editorial on the genocide in East Timor was very important in getting the country's press to finally take note of what was happening there.
The reason why the NY Times (and Washington Post etc) are so influential is not just because of their readership (a lot of the most powerful people in the country and elsewhere), but because they set the agenda for the rest of the nation's local media.
An editorial in the NY Times about Linux lends the issue "importance" status in the eyes of a lot of influential people.
> This is probably an unpopular sentiment, but what
> exactly is good about patriotism?
Patriotism is love of and devotion to your country. Sometimes it can be a good thing because it results in a form of altruism - people putting what is good for their whole country ahead of what is good for themselves.
The problems of course happen when what is good for your country conflicts with what is good for everyone else, or when patriotism is misdirected into making people do things that are not good for their country (which seems to happen most of the time):)
> That so much hatred could be directed toward
> what is undoubtedly the worlds freest country.
What makes you think that the US is any freer than
Sweden, Holland, New Zealand, Canada etc etc?
Americans are indoctrinated from childhood into believing they are the freest and most democratic country in the world, but never ask the question whether this is really true.
If Americans have the right to free speech why is their no open debate in the mainstream media about the big questions like why the Govt seems to be completely controlled by big business and what can be done about it? Does the US really have the right to change the regimes of other countries as it sees fit? Why is criticising the Govt's foreign policy often said to be being 'un-American'?
If America is truely the most democratic nation why is it that most the Govt is made up of wealthy middle aged white men serving the interests of big business?
Part of why there is so much hatred towards America is that Americans themselves are seen to be so ignorant of what is going on in their own-country and in the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow you are very mixed up with your terminology (and in your thinking in general). Sure SQL as a declarative relational language is quite powerful for certain tasks, but by itself it isn't a general purpose programming language (for a start it's associated with a permanent data store, it doesn't have any I/O etc). There are also computation tasks which are very difficult to do in it (try maintaining recurse data structures such as trees). So you clump it together with 'procedural' programming and then mention something vague about about "formulas instead of patterns". > IOW, "formulas" versus "patterns". > Formulas are not only more compact, but don't > clutter up the larger-scale structure of the > code. (LISP fans say similar things about GOF > patterns, I would note). The concept of a pattern is as applicable to procedural or relational programming as it is to object oriented design (or architecture or whatever other design problems you have). It just happens that the GOF book is about OO design patterns. What do you mean by 'formulas'? Do you mean declarative statements (like SQL) versus imperative (for loops etc)? Your statement is meaingless to me. > Thus, you are not only reinventing a (halfass) > database with GOF, but reinventing an > out-of-style one on top of that. A double-whammy > no-no in my book. The OO design patterns in GOF are pretty fundamental and the problems they solve have been around forever. eg. database 'triggers' are an example of the observer pattern. Most aren't applicable to relational model by itself at all (eg. facade, factory etc)... On your website you map the OO patterns into the database equivalents, but it's ridiculous, all you are doing it mapping classes to tables, objects to rows, attributes to fields. So what? This isn't relational programming! You still need procedural code on top of it to implement the pattern, and then you are just simulating OO programming with procedures. > The GOF Patterns movement is mostly a rehash > of technology and philosophy that died in the > early 70's, as variations of Codd's relational > model proved superior And Codd's relational model was influenced by earlier research on knowledge representation in AI frames and semantic networks etc, inheritance in object orientation was also used in frames. Patterns are new because the give a name to design problems that previously had no names. Most of the OO design patterns are not applicable for relational programming but there is no reason to stop you from creating relational SQL patterns.
The world of computer programming seems to be getting more 'pluralistic' by the day. In certain areas there is convergence but in general the number of technologies and methologies seem to be increasing at an alarming rate - almost impossible to keep up with.
Most experienced programmers realize there is no 'silver bullet' to the problem of engineering software, in most cases many sets of different methodologies and programming technologies could be combined to produce a working system, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
The paper argues that this shouldn't be seen as a 'failure' of software engineering (and more generally computer science) but rather as something once realized can result in more pragmatic approaches to building software, such as using methodologies and tools which support multiple approaches (like XP and Perl). Mix and match styles that most suit, like people mix and match their beliefs in post-modern society.
People often say a variant of this to me. "If you don't like X why do you live here?". Because I have my friends and my life here, and other things that make up for X!
It seems to me a huge portion of the Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that criticizing any aspect of the country makes you 'anti-American' and not deserving to live here. It is so ironic because wouldn't someone who really loves their country want to fix what is wrong instead of abandoning it?
Someone once told me that Americans love their country in a blind unquestioning way that people love their mother - the more I live here the more I am inclined to agree.
> Does ANYONE really care what an editor of a newspaper thinks?
The NY Times editorials can be enormously influential. Supposedly the first NY Times editorial on the genocide in East Timor was very important in getting the country's press to finally take note of what was happening there.
The reason why the NY Times (and Washington Post etc) are so influential is not just because of their readership (a lot of the most powerful people in the country and elsewhere), but because they set the agenda for the rest of the nation's local media. An editorial in the NY Times about Linux lends the issue "importance" status in the eyes of a lot of influential people.
> This is probably an unpopular sentiment, but what
:)
> exactly is good about patriotism?
Patriotism is love of and devotion to your country. Sometimes it can be a good thing because it results in a form of altruism - people putting what is good for their whole country ahead of what is good for themselves.
The problems of course happen when what is good for your country conflicts with what is good for everyone else, or when patriotism is misdirected into making people do things that are not good for their country (which seems to happen most of the time)
> That so much hatred could be directed toward > what is undoubtedly the worlds freest country. What makes you think that the US is any freer than Sweden, Holland, New Zealand, Canada etc etc? Americans are indoctrinated from childhood into believing they are the freest and most democratic country in the world, but never ask the question whether this is really true. If Americans have the right to free speech why is their no open debate in the mainstream media about the big questions like why the Govt seems to be completely controlled by big business and what can be done about it? Does the US really have the right to change the regimes of other countries as it sees fit? Why is criticising the Govt's foreign policy often said to be being 'un-American'? If America is truely the most democratic nation why is it that most the Govt is made up of wealthy middle aged white men serving the interests of big business? Part of why there is so much hatred towards America is that Americans themselves are seen to be so ignorant of what is going on in their own-country and in the rest of the world.