Re: If design patterns are not supposed to produce reusable code then why use them?

At 5:16 PM +0000 1/3/10, Tony Marston wrote:

I offer an alternative view - there are those programmers who need design patterns to fill a hole in their experience, as a sort of mental crutch, and there are those who do not need design patterns as they have the experience and ability to work without them, just as an experienced cyclist does not need training wheels, and an experienced artist does not need a painting-by-numbers kit. -- Tony Marston

Tony: I respect your opinion, but there may be more to this than what you said. As some of you know, I've been pounding code since 1965 and while I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, I am seeing new things all the time. Perhaps I'm seeing the same thing over and over, but while some of this is rehashing old ideas and presenting them in new packaging, some of it is actually new concepts worth investigating. Clearly OOP is different than procedural code. Likewise, Design Patterns (DP) are different ways to categorize problem solving than relying upon personal experience. These two new camps (OOP/DP) are similar in grouping as are the older procedural and experience camps, if you get my meaning. These different camps are much like a light switch, either you swing one way or the other, but not usually both. I find myself in both camps and being somewhat overwhelmed by the newer camp. The procedural/experience camp provides me with all the tools I need to get anything done that I want done. Whereas, the OOP/DP provides me with enough intrigue to prompt me to investigate -- and the more I look, the better I like. There appears to be more here than just an inexperience issue. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com