[erlang-questions] "Design patterns" for functional languages?

Sten Kvamme <>
Thu Aug 7 21:23:41 CEST 2008


I have always considered anti-patterns to be more interesting than  
patterns. Learning from other peoples mistakes is not limiting the  
creativity like patterns is doing. Studying patterns and re-doing  
other peoples solutions is downright boring.

The pattern movement started with Christoper Alexander trying to  
teach less great architects to create quality-without -a-name. The  
experiment was not successful, the less great architects could not  
create  quality-without -a-name despite the extensive help from  
Christopher's patterns.

/Sten Kvamme

On Aug 7, 2008, at 19:22 , Patrick Logan wrote:

> "The OTP is a collection of GoF-style patterns for Erlang."
>
> I think this list, as well as the softwate community as a whole, has
> lost sight of the original intent of the "patterns movement".
>
> The original intent of a "pattern" is the format of the information,
> more than the information per se.
>
> The format should be written in (one of several) pattern styles. The
> overall presentation of some set of patterns should form a "patterns
> language".
>
> So to say the "OTP is a collection of patterns" is true only in the
> worst definition of "pattern".
>
> A really useful pattern language for OTP would guide the programmer
> from some initial kind of problem through the application of some
> patterns that address that problem and associated forces that would
> direct the programmer through a set of choices and partial solutions,
> toward an overall solution.
>
> And stuff.
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list