From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <20030914215815.19895.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] g++
In-reply-to: <00da01c37afe$980ee260$b9844051@insultant.net>
References: <2c45af7b985c5fcc1e3bcf51edbbd9e4@mightycheese.com> <00da01c37afe$980ee260$b9844051@insultant.net>
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:58:14 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 353202c6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

| i don't understand these 'design pattern' zealots.  i don't need
| a pattern -- i'll just code it.

I didn't either, until I had to explain to some undergraduates how
to write programs.  Then suddenly you realize that there are ways and
means that you learned by reading "software tools" and a pile of open
source software and other stuff, but that these kids have never seen,
and are not going to see between now and monday, if ever.  So how do you
communicate those ideas in digestible chunks?  And after you've written
something for the ninth or tenth time, don't you want to reuse it?

The interesting critique I've heard about design patterns is that a
higher level/more powerful programming langauge is a better use of effort.