Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> working in a functional language and claiming they don't need design patterns because they're the same as having first class functions

The point really was that you need different design patterns in a functional language, and most of the GoF design patterns are useless in a functional language, as they either deal with state, or they deal with something that had some better solution in a functional language (e.g. through algebraic datatypes, which were built-in).

So if you amend "we don't need design patterns" to "we don't need most of the GoF design patterns", it's actually a true statement.

> Monads? A design pattern.

Exactly.

And now the pendulum has swung back, and instead of providing primitive language features that would make using the Monad design patterns easy, we have half-assed async/await implementations in lots of imperative languages, just because people didn't realize async/await is just a particular use of the Monad design pattern.

> This means they go through their career building up all sorts of design knowledge, but rarely naming and sharing it at a useful level of granularity.

Which is really sad, because the GoF book really emphasized this point.

But for some reason programmers seem to have a desire to turn everything into some kind of cult...



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: