Re: Patterns and Compositionality

This is exactly the point I was trying to address in my original post:

Massimo Dentico wrote:
> *if* the substitution process (generalizing/inlining) for
> patterns  in  OOD is  equivalent  to the substituition process  in
> functional/logic  languages  (pattern  matching) [...]

It is not equivalent.

Design patterns in OOD are not substituted, generalized, or inlined. 
The concept has no meaning for design patterns.  Design patterns are a
way of communicating knowledge.  They're written in natural language for
use by human observers.  To use a design pattern, you read it,
internalize it, and intuit its applicability to your design.  Good
design is a matter of communication and understanding, not
functionality, and as such it simply can't be formalized or automated. 
As a tool for communicating "good design," neither can design patterns.

Comparing design patterns to pattern matching in functional languages is
a fallacy.  They are not comparable.

Jim


PS: I'm not trying to address the rest of the discussion -- I'm just
trying to clear up a pretty strong misunderstanding about the nature of
design patterns.