Last year we had the 15th (or so?) anniversary of the seminal "Gang of Four" book. Is it that old already? So maybe discussing the design patterns is all an old and boring stuff now? Well, shame on me, I wanted to write up my ideas on that matter for such a long time that I run the risk of them beeing irrelevant. But on the other side it's a kind of unfinished business for me, and I have a to kind of close it up.
Some time ago I wondered - why didn't I use the design patterns that much in my programming and design work? I came to the conclusion then, that the design patterns are useful as a common vocabulary as to speak about designs, but then some new ideas surfaced in my mind. By the way, why should I use a pattern vocabulary if I don't use any patterns in my designs?
1. Ideas from chess and math
If you're playing chess (need a Wikipedia link here? ;-) you are accustomed to seeing the board in patterns: check-mate patterns it is! You try to imagine what kind of a check-mate setup could be possible in a given situation, and then work towards that by moving your pieces and trying to chase away your opponent's pieces as to complete the pattern you have in your mind. I must admit that I never had this feeling when writing software. Some pattern in my mind which is the solution for some design problem? Nope.
Read the "Refactoring to Patterns" book by Joshua Kerievsky? When I first heard of the book I though he struck the right idea: only use patterns to refactor code which is a mess. But then when actually reading the book, it was rather a feeling (in most cases) of doing something wrong to the code, well, like overengineering it! So the book didn't reconcile me with patterns too, as it didn't give me the chess-like feeling of a pattern just matching a given situation.
The other problem with patterns is their presentation. This overly formal template with "Forces" (why not just problems?), "Intent", "Consequences", etc, etc... This makes me think about "The mathematicians lament"* - where a matematician reproaches his fellow scientists of over-formalization of mathematics with the effect of its incomprehensibility. What he is saying is basically the following: yes we need the formalism, but only in some very difficult cases where our intuitions don't work. But not in every and one case: "nobody's dying here!"*, you can relax a bit!
It's the same with patterns: the stern formality of presentation is both somehow comical and making the contents rather indigestible, and an dry, uninspiring read. I can only say, relax, we are not deliberating about the meaninig of infinity like Cantor did! We are just describing some not so complicated techniques of object composition! Could you stop to be so pompous?
2. Dreyfus et al.
Do you know the Dreyfus model of knowledge acquisition**? It defines several phases in learning a specific skill: beginner, advanced beginner, competent, proficient and expert. Beginners need rules and recipies, competents can continue learning on their own, proficients and experts see the big picture and fly by the seat of his pants.
Where do the design patterns fit in this scheme? Well, at the beginner level they aren't useful, as they are not "step by step" recipies. On the other side, for the proficients and experts, they are some kind of rules, and experts do not like rules and recipies by definition!
I personally think that patterns appeal rather to the lower ranges of the skill spectrum. Did you see the hopelessly overengineered software full of design patterns written by the beginners? I've seen it only too often!
So maybe they are for the competent? And the usage by competent and proficient users? Let me tell you a little story here. It's not entirely true that I don't use patterns! Lately, I thought that I could warrant the use of the visitor pattern in my current product, as to extract the reporting aspect out of several content managing classes. Well, it has a kind of worked at first, but now, as this whole aspect has to be redesigned, I noticed that this design is rather unintuitive and I cannot simplify the reporting without dumping visitor first. Ok, experiment failed, but my initial problem was that I didn't really search for a solution of my problem, but rather stopped at the point where I found the (as I thought then) matching design pattern! But I didn't think it trough as thoroughly as I should!
3. Summing up
So maybe the thing with patterns is that they are like the "Wittgenstein's Ladder"? You know, what he said in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (I cite from memory):
...this book is like a ladder, use it, but then throw it away.Isn't it the same with patterns? Use them to expand your experience, but don't use them in your software! And as to make the discussion complete, let us state a completely different point of view, a Lisper's critique***:
When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough-- often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write.
This is the typical smug Lisp programmer assertion, as they mean that all other languages will in limes converge to Lisp, but newly I tend to think along the lines of the Lispers: the design patterns are a fix for lacking feature in language A, which you know from language B. But as we cannot change the language in most cases, and we are doing OO in the mainstream, just mind the ladder parable!
Update (June 2010): There's another explanation which I didn't think of before. I came across that when reading some programming book (which I cannot come up with now, sorry for the author!). Recall the mid 90-ties: it was the time of the "object craze", everybody wanted to be part of OO. But nobody really understood OO, and as the book went "Stroustrup gave us the C++ but he didn't tell us how to use it"! Her come the patterns, a kind of missing OO manual! This would explain my feelin that half of them was trivial (or not so difficult to figure them up by yourself) and the other half was implemeting language features missing from C++. Very sober diagnose, but at the moment it's my favourite.
* Paul Lockhart, "A Mathematician’s Lament", www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf
** I found it in the book of Andy Hunt, "Pragmatic Thinking and Learning", Pragmatic Bookshelf, Oct. 2008, but here's a blog post link, and here another one
*** Paul Graham, "Revenge of the Nerds", http://paulgraham.com/icad.html