Quote:Original post by Sambori
I'm talking about "patterns" not "AI" idiot!
Uh, your strange quotations made me miss this part. Really, calm down now.
Quote:Original post by Sambori
I'm talking about "patterns" not "AI" idiot!
Quote:Original post by Sambori
This is a professional forum and keep on mind that many people are highly professional and older than you. So show some respect.
Quote:Original post by Sambori
Avoid such an attitude at interviews. This will never get you a job in the software industry.
Quote:Original post by Sambori
I'm talking about "patterns" not "AI" idiot!
Quote:Original post by samgzman
I am aware of a growing community of developers who dislike patterns (or specifically, the design by patterns school of thought), but consider the following:
Most introductory books on OO languages and computer science curricula only go as far as to say "OO is about inheritance" or something else as naive and as shallow. Very few books and courses provide any real insight on how to build real software systems using OO techniques. Patterns, on the other hand, provide a systematic approach to teaching/learning these techniques that would otherwise have to be learned through years of trial and error and studying other people's code.
Furthermore, patterns are so broad and generic, everything you would write beyond "hello world" is covered by at least one. I would argue that if a programmer introduces unnecessary complexity by designing with patterns, its because they don't have a complete knowledge of the problem they are trying to solve, their programming language (and it libraries), or design patterns themselves. The work of bad software engineers who design by patterns is not a testament to the merit of designing by patterns.
If anything, patterns (both as a vocabulary and design philosophy) encourage structure, consistency, and robustness.
Quote:Original post by AntheusQuote:Patterns can greatly help setting up an object oriented game framework that can be used in different genres.And anal sex is great because it works on all genders.
Quote:Original post by ApochPiQ
First off: this thread is being watched. Act accordingly.
Secondly: patterns are often misunderstood. If you are treating patterns as prescriptive, you are doing it wrong, full stop, end of discussion. I unfortunately have misplaced my copy of the GoF book, but I distinctly recall something to that effect in the intro text (which apparently most pattern aficionados have never actually read).
Patterns are not intended to tell you how to design software. Patterns are post facto descriptions. Patterns are for talking about how you did something, not how you will do something.
Also, on a related note, refactoring code to suit a pattern is just boneheaded religion.
Design the appropriate solution. Then you can talk about it in terms of the patterns it most closely resembles, because chances are you will incorporate multiple patterns and variations on standard patterns if you did your design job correctly.
But design the appropriate solution. Patterns are a hammer; your problems are almost always screws, not nails.
Quote:Original post by ApochPiQ
Patterns are not intended to tell you how to design software. Patterns are post facto descriptions. Patterns are for talking about how you did something, not how you will do something.