Talk:Design Patterns/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

learning 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)

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)

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)

I agree that the article should be moved to Design Patterns (book) or Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software for the sake of clarity. Everyone familiar with the book is familiar with the Design pattern concept (and particularly the Software design pattern concept), and most everyone who is familiar with the software concept knows that there is a book that is the "bible" on the subject. It should be apparent, immediately upon arriving at this article, which of the two (actually three) subjects it is about, but it is not. Indeed, this should be apparent from merely looking at the link before clicking on it. (FWIW, I arrived at the article after clicking on a link in an article on OOP that was discussing the concept, not the book.) This subject has been discussed under three headings on this page. From my reading, no one has objected to the change. Amirite? Frappyjohn (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2013 (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)

Second, a criticism section is badly needed.69.81.143.142 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the patterns the book describes (eg singleton) are now considered anti-patterns by many in the community. This is worth highlighting. 77.232.173.2 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the "criticism" of particular patterns (notably the Factories, as well as Singleton) are about misuse of patterns, rather than the pattern itself. Design patterns in software would be a lot better if more coders read the book and understood it, rather than thinking that keeping the book on their desk and dropping in the odd buzzword now and then made them ubergeeken. There is any amount of criticism out there about misused Singletons and about people who choose to use Singletons from a position of ignorance about their drawbacks. They would know more about Singletons if they'd even read this (now rather elderly) book. There is much less criticism about the Singleton, as presented and described in GoF. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2014 (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)

That's a good question. Wikipedia is not a textbook, it's a tertiary source. That is to say, articles should summarize descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources. So the question is whether Design Patterns is a secondary source. It reads more like original research – the preface says the book is "a recording of our current thoughts on design" (Gang of Four 1995:xii) – and though some of the book's citations refer to other patterns, it's rare to find much analysis of the prior art in each pattern (a possible exception being pp148–149). So what we have here is basically a summary of a primary source. As the book is the only source cited in the article, the claims that it has been "highly influential" etc are unsourced so the article in its current state fails the notability test, which is inexcusable. The content should be moved to [Wikiversity] and the article replaced with an overview of the book's subject matter, with a reliably-sourced summary of how it was originally received and its current reputation. I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy right now to put up with the ensuing aggravation. - Pointillist (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the detailed answer to my question. I didn't even know that Wikiversity existed. I might take a stab at cleaning this up if somebody doesn't get to it before me. Thanks again! -- 76.102.30.152 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is a good question. My take on it is more about organization of the article than about lack of citations. There is really no need to summarize a book chapter by chapter on Wikipedia. Anne_of_Green_Gables is a great example of a good Wikipedia page for a book. It has contents: Background - Plot summary - Characters - Related works - Tourism and merchandising - Legacy and honors - Adaptations - Parodies - References - Further reading - External links. For a book such as design patterns it could be Background - Summary of ideas - Related works - In popular culture - Legacy - Editions - References - Further reading - External links and inside the bodies of these paragraphs links to design patterns page and authors biography pages. It is unfortunate there is so many references to Gang of Four and Three so which gang authors belong to should be explained in Legacy paragraph. I am willing to help re-organizing this. Gpeja (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear what detail state is here, but this is a very influential work in the computer programming field, so it has a place like any other such text. If the current content violates policy or fails to be what it ought for such a case that's actionable, otherwise not and so I'll remove the tags, assuming this is their thread as it (the threads and the tags relative to current content) appear to be stale. Lycurgus (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

GPeja, see your comment is recent and you're apparently aware of the import of the title. Agree that this shouldn't be a copy of the book structure but OTOH the pattern groups are the major structure of the book and should also be the structure of a section here but that shouldn't be the bulk of the article. This stuff is 20 y old and there's much sequelae to fold in, no need to regurgitate the text structure or obsess on Gang of however many. GoF is the common usage referring more to the text than the specific authors. Lycurgus (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional external link

I have added an external link to GoF Design Patterns Open Online Learning (w3sdesign.com). Do you agree? Serv49 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2016 (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!

http://wiki.c2.com/?GangOfFour the above link has the history you asked for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.26.227 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stic~enwiki (talk • contribs) 09:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus regarding this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 22:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Design Patterns → Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software – Seems to conflict with the article Design pattern (for the concept of a design pattern). Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - unnecessary disambiguation (the move target is already a redirect here), and there is a hatnote at the top of both pages. I'm not sure what sort of conflict is present. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – the full title seems appropriately precise, while the short title does not. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note regarding this point, only one incoming wikilink out of roughly 100 is from the full title. About 3/4 of the links are directly to this page. This makes me think that people do know where they're pointing their links. Primefac (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A classic case of a small difference in styling being a perfect disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

Someone has slapped a non-notable label on this article. In my opinion, it meets at least three of the five notability criteria (1, 3, 4), even withouth taking into account the special provisions in WP:TEXTBOOKS. Therefore, I fail to understand why has that label been put here, but I don't want to remove it without discussion.--Gorpik (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Steve Quinn tagged it. Pinging for input. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Primefac; I should have done it myself. Reading my comment again, that Someone has slapped may seem disparaging towards him, but that was not my intention. I am just a bit dumbfounded.--Gorpik (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Gorpik, and Andy Dingley:

First, look at the tag that was already there - promotes the subject in a subjective manner and needs additional citations for verification. I searched for reviews of this book, and found none in google news search. There are interviews of the authors (15 years later), but this is not usually considered independent. There is a blog that mentions some of the most recommended books, not much coverage, and not much for a reliable source [2]. and I doubt this is useful: DZONE.

I checked JSTOR, and I checked for scholarly reviews [3] and found one review of sorts [4], but I have to look at this again. In essence, there are no scholarly reviews. G-scholar does say a little more than 38,000 cites, but I have no idea how accurate this is. I really can't say this is notable based only on that. I can use it as an indicator - that is how I see it. I think I have a couple more items to mention. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TEXTBOOK. I agree that it is an imprint of Pearson, an academic publisher. However, I am not seeing where the book has been widely or heavily cited by "other academic publications or in the media". Also, there seems to be no way to determine the following: "whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions". Also, how many editions has this book gone through? As far as I can tell, there has been only one edition. This does not speak well for being the main textbook (or even taught) in academic institutions, i.e, colleges and universities. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In 2005, The ACM SIGPLAN awarded that year's Programming Languages Achievement Award to the authors "in recognition of the impact of their work 'on programming practice and programming language design'". This does not seem to be a book award. This seems to be some sort of decades long achievement award - kind of like a Lifetime Achievement award. In any case, the related Wikipedia article that discusses the SIGPLAN award is all primary sources. Same with this article - the sources are published by the organization presenting the awards. There are no independent sources in either article that cover this award and its significance. It hasn't been verified as significant. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The references in this article don't seem to meet the description of reliable sources WP:RS that would normally indicate the notability of this topic. It Hence, these references also fail WP:V, verification in regard to notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me? You've already simply reverted me to slap this ridiculous tag on the article, so clearly you have zero interest in anyone else's, or at least my, opinions.

This is one of the most important books in software engineering of that decade (or perhaps of 2000-, when it began to be taken widespread note of). It has had a revolutionary and industry-wide impact, as reflected in the SIGPLAN award. Any experienced developer will know it as simply "Gang of Four" or even just "GoF". Even many inexperienced developers know it, because it's a core part of most university teaching. If you're unfamiliar with it, then I wonder just what sort of code your shop is turning out?

But WP wants to judge it against some irrelevant criteria as if it has a book award. Typical. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A problem with sources for Computing or IT related issues is that authors have a preference for blogs, rather than traditional publishers; therefore, what qualifies for a reliable source in other matters may not be applicable here. If you search for the book in Goodreads, you can see that it has been translated to quite a few languages (I see Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, German, Czech and Finnish versions, at least). This is quite a lot for a Computing book, since most professionals tend to read books in English, regardless of their native language. All in all there are 35 different editions there. I can also see that this book is still #14 in Amazon's bestseller list for Software Design, Testing & Engineering; only four books published before 2010 are in the Top 20, being this one the oldest by far. This is, in my opinion, a clear indicator that the book is a classic. Also, if you search Google for gang of four design patterns, you get 1.7 million results. I've also googled for "facade design pattern" and "facade pattern" (with quotes in both cases), getting nearly 700,000 results in total, the facade pattern being one of the patterns introduced by this book. These are, again, clear signs of the impact it has had.--Gorpik (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Another aspect of this is how little impact other works on software design patterns have had since. This is the book that established the vocabulary for discussing design patterns. Very little has been added to that since: we keep seeing "Design Patterns for Powerpoint" since, trying to shoe-horn in a book for a new niche, or see a new "Barista" pattern created, but none of these really get traction. This book not only instigated design patters as a general term of use (as much as regular expressions or continuous integration), but it also carved out so much of the field by itself that it has remained as the leading text on it for twenty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

With regards to being taught in academic institutions, I've sat through a class at a university where this book was recommended reading. While that was almost two decades ago and course recommendations are not easily found online anymore, other courses still recommend this book for further reading. One such example: https://people.cs.umass.edu/~rjust/courses/2016Spring/CS520.620/ Juhalindfors (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Thomas Foxcroft (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I also agree. Here are the guidelines. As stated by Article titles, "If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move," and as stated by Moving a page, one reason for moving a page is because "It needs to be disambiguated in some way to avoid confusion with an existing, similarly named topic, or it exists at a disambiguated name but should not because it is the primary topic." A standard way to disambiguate is stated by Naming conventions for books, where it says in subtopic "Standard disambiguation," the title can be suffixed with "(book)."

Furthermore, when an article's title is changed, its database entry is altered but not actually moved. For this reason, a title change is sometimes called a rename, although move remains the most common term.

I will take the initiative to move the page and add the suffix to disambiguate the title for this article.

Thomas Foxcroft (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC) An attempt was made, but the page could not be moved (renamed).

You missed the RM request below (it was archived early). Primefac (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete "Case study" section?

The "Case study" section has been tagged as "contain[ing] an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience," and indeed the section is a lengthy, play-by-play summary of one section of the Design Patterns book. I don't think there's much to salvage here; there is already a good summary of the core of the book in the "Patterns by type" section, and the case study is mostly illustrative and not a good fit for an encyclopedia. If no one objects here, I will remove it, and probably trim the "Introduction" section too. Rublov (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

AgreeI think this section, while interesting somewhere else, is not suitable for Wikipedia.--Gorpik (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Rublov (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguate (Gang of Four 1995:18)

How is (Gang of Four 1995:18) supposed to be interpreted? 209.221.240.192 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess it means chapter 18 of the 1995 edition of the book. But I don't think this bibliography format is standard in Wikipedia. Gorpik (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)