Talk:Design Patterns

Move

Hmmm, A couple of thoughts on this entry: 1)shouldn't, perhaps, the 'Design Patterns' page be about the concept of design patterns, with a reference to the Gang of Four book of the same title as one of the primary works on the subject? There is much more to say about design patterns than appears in the GOF book, and there are other books on the subject. 2)Does listing a books table of contents count as plagerism?

Agreed. There's already Design pattern (computer science) for the concept in general -- so if this article is to be about the book, it should bear the name of the book. -- Tarquin 19:29 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

So, who's going to do it? RodrigoBelo 23:16 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed

Design Patterns CD

the usefull resource for this book is a CD version - maybe this should also be put somewhere on this page?

Gamma, Erich, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides (1997). Design Patterns CD. ISBN 0201634988.

Year of publication?

At the bottom it says books from 1994, but is this correct? I would expect a line like: The book was first published in 19xx, with a much improved second edition in 19xx ...

No, this is the correct version. We're still using it as a Textbook. The book basically is the bible of Design Patterns.

gang of four link

What IS this "gang of four" -thing anyway? Sounds kinda stupid to me... like they had written this wikipedia article --sigs

small note: i clicked on the gang of four wikilink and reached another gang of four (political meaning), i changed it to point to gang of four (software), and then i saw it redirects me to here (design patterns). i don't know what is the convention on this case, but i guess that the old state (linking to a diffrent gang of four) is not a good idea, and redirecting to the same page is also not a good idea (it's correct, but it looks bad). so mean while i'm turning the link down.

Hmm. It somehow was relinked to the political group again, possibly by accident. I've removed the link again as the disambiguated page redirects here. 69.3.185.246 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ekta: The contents are really good, I found more valid contents here than any of the design sites I know of. Congratulations to the publisher of this information and keep it up!!

Iceman: I believe the "Gang of Four" term is a reference to the "Gang of Three". This was a term given to 3 prominent leaders in the Chinese Communist government.

anon: I'm removing the link, again it's referring to the Chinese politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

suggest removing link to Microsoft Patterns and Practices

Possibly this link makes sense on the more general Design pattern (Computer Science) page, but I'm not sure it belongs here. Any opinions about my possibly removing it from here?Harborsparrow 21:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Babomb 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

link to online book

I have restored the link Design Patterns CD: Elements of Re-usable Object-Oriented Software The entire book online, updated by the authors for CD. with apologies to the anon. user who deleted it. If they have published the book online, it is not illegal to link to it; it would only be illegal to duplicate the material itself (which we have not).Harborsparrow 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harborsparrow. AFAIK the authors didn't publish the book online. The book is sold on a CD (ISBN 0201634988), I had one some years ago. The linked site seems to be a copy of the CD, put there by someone in Romania. Yes, a link to that page isn't illegal, but I had the impression that links to unauthorized content is discouraged in the Wikipedia as much as links to warez sites. That is why I removed the link, even though it is a useful resource to have the book online. --213.209.110.130 09:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I see now that it is from Romania. Thanks for the clarification; I have removed the link again.

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.50 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

learinng it faster

I came upon quite useful links: http://geekswithblogs.net/bjones/archive/2005/05/01/38837.aspx and http://mahemoff.com/paper/software/learningGoFPatterns/ . I think they should be added there. NOTE: former links to later. 84.16.123.194 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

"The Gang of Four" - I haven't seen any information about how these guys got this name, but I believe it's an allusion to the Greek "Gang of Three"; Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, being concerned with logic also. There doesn't seem to be a wikipedia article about the Gang of Three but it would be good to create one and then mention this allusion!

How about an image

Perhaps this one from the John Vlissides C2 article? Jon (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?

You need a citation to note that the authors are referred to as the Gang of Four? Really? What a waste of a {{cn}}. --72.222.129.211 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source; everything should be properly sourced. A {{cn}} does not necessarily mean a challenge to a claim, but it is true that this article is sorely missing sources.Gorpik (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider Renaming Article

• Can we consider renaming the article to "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software"? Nonnb (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, this name is highly ambiguous - Ben - 30 March 2011, 10:46 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.80.11 (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No coverage of scorn

The article doesn't appear to include any criticisms of the book or the approach to design patterns. I've only ever heard reference to the book in contexts where the speakers lambast followers and readers who indiscriminately champion and adhere to the patterns, with specific disdain heaped upon the book having introduced a significant amount of jargon. A few ex-Netscape folks, for example, don't seem to think very highly of the book (or perhaps just its detrimental effects on software engineering in the 1990s). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the article sounds biased towards the book content. I, myself, disagree with some of patterns and the fluffy code they stimulate. Bestsss (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Move/rename, again

I tagged Design Patterns/Design Patterns (book) so that the former (full article) would be renamed as the latter (redirect). This was the consensus as per Talk:Design_Patterns#Move and Talk:Design_Patterns#Consider_Renaming_Article. User:Cybercobra reverted, on the basis that "discussions stale/ancient". I disagree that such decisions need be recent to be valid. Although the decision is old there was not a single objection. Please elaborate on contention. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consider Renaming Article" suggested a title of Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software, not Design Patterns (book). The other über-stale discussion is off-base since the capitalized proper noun Design Patterns uniquely refers to this book; c.f. WP:PRECISION. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the disambiguation provided by the difference in capitalization (between Design Patterns and Design pattern) is sufficiently precise, I admit. Although "It is acceptable to create two articles (on different topics) with titles that differ only in capitalization" I still favor the alternative, Design Patterns (book), based on that "It is also acceptable to use names that are differentiated in other ways; which approach should be taken may vary from case to case, balancing such considerations as the risk of confusion in using one set of names against the departure from brevity and common usage in using the other." (source). I recognize it's unlikely that we two will reach consensus, so I'm undoing my revert thus leaving it as it was originally. Fgnievinski (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Now, what about Design patterns? I don't think it is a better redirect to any of the two above, so I am in favor of making it a disambiguation page instead. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I also left alone the redirect Design patterns, only added a hatnote to Design pattern: [1]. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the place for detailed book summaries?

Is Wikipedia the place for detailed book summaries? Personally, I think it's great. I love this amount of detail and information. But I'm curious, does Wikipedia have a policy about this? Should it go on Wiki Summaries? Please know that I'm asking because I'm curious, not because I plan (or even want to) make changes to the article. -- Foofy (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)