Talk:A Pattern Language

Architecture?

Um, this relates to computer architecture, not building architecture. --Treekids 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um Treekids, I think you'll find it relates to what you call building archiecture not computer architecture. The clue is in the title A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction WearTheFoxHat 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is not calling it the foundation of a movement promotional? --Treekids 15:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine that such a phrasing could be promotional, but in this case it's factual. It may be that more copies have been sold to software engineers (and CSCI students) than to building architects (and architecture students.) Unless someone objects in a couple of days, I'll remove the NPOV tag htom (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I'm a software engineer, and that's how I stumbled across it. I also think the NPOV should be removed, and... I think I'll do so. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good that I forgot, because you did good work on the restoration, too. Thank you. htom (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we know that A Pattern Language is the origin of design patterns?

Would love to see a citation for this claim. Lot 49a^talk 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexander's book is at least referenced in "Design Patterns" by the Gang of Four; don't know if it will suffice your request. The following text taken from the introduction:

Christopher Alexander says, "Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice" [AIS+77, page x]. Even though Alexander was talking about patterns in buildings and towns, what he says is true about object-oriented design patterns. Our solutions are expressed in terms of objects and interfaces instead of walls and doors, but at the core of both kinds of patterns is a solution to a problem in a context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.126.33.147 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean up needed and started

The article on A Pattern Language needed substantial clean up. Rather than do it in one major change, I took it a piece at a time, so I could write a brief explanation of the basis for each change.

At its core, the article as I found it on 22 Dec 2010 UTC contained significant errors, undocumented presumptions, non-encyclopaedic comments and ambiguous grammar. Rather than make presumptions about what Alexander and his team meant, I opened the book and as much as possible extracted what they actually said. I attempted to objectify the writing, and replace what may be regarded as opinion or cultural bias with factual statements derived from the book.

A Pattern Language is in some ways a milestone in its field. It created a tool that did not exist prior, both in its specific focus: a tool to enable ordinary people to speak about design, but also a larger concept, the idea of creating a "language" not in the sense of a constructed language such as Esperanto, but in the higher realm of what Plato in the Republic calls forms (Theory of Forms): a language of the mind that can use any existing language such as English to form a new way of coherently thinking not only about an idea, but how those ideas interrelate.

This article still could use some more work, but it would be important that any future editors have a copy of the book in front of them, and carefully read the preface before writing. Alexander's team do a good job explaining what the book is about.

I put some time in it now to clean up the most egregious problems. At some time in the future, it should be edited so it flows in a more encyclopaedic fashion. ClassicalScholar (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Page on "A Pattern Language" should be merged with page on "Pattern Language"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The content of Pattern language is almost wholly based on the book A Pattern Language. It seems that these two articles should be merged. Any assistance with the merge would be appreciated. Gabriel Orion Crawford (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

disagree, the concept and the book are two separate entities, so merging their articles makes little sense. riffic (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The book stands on its own, and it is of historic importance. While it may have spawned a new language, it is not that new language. There are numerous internet references in the field of architecture that point to Wikipedia to talk about the book, not the language. This would produce confusion if merged. If the content of Pattern Language is similar to the book, perhaps the former page should be better edited, since the book talks about architecture and design, whereas the language concept is heavily used in computer software as well.ClassicalScholar 06:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

Since the original proposer of this idea Gabriel Orion Crawford is no longer registered with Wikipedia, I will remove the proposal to merge ClassicalScholar 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC) comment added by ClassicalScholar (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean with "no longer registered with Wikipedia" as the nominator's account is in place, even if no user page has been created. Nevertheless as after one week there is no consensus for merger, which I disagree with as well, I am closing the discussion. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken about the difference between the book and the concept. As they are now, these two articles are confusing and not very helpful, but I can see the point that merging them is not part of the solution. ClassicalScholar, thank you for your work to improve this article on the book; this is definitely the better of the two at the moment. As Elekhh points out, I am registered with Wikipedia. I just do not have a user page and have not contributed much. (And sorry for editing a section that tells me IN RED not to modify it!) Gabriel Orion Crawford (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.