<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Design Patterns are missing language features.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/2006/09/24/design-patterns-are-missing-language-features/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/2006/09/24/design-patterns-are-missing-language-features/</link>
	<description>I sleep with pillows on my head.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:03:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: wtetzner</title>
		<link>http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/2006/09/24/design-patterns-are-missing-language-features/comment-page-1/#comment-27860</link>
		<dc:creator>wtetzner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sheysrebellion.net/Blog/?p=19#comment-27860</guid>
		<description>I agree that design patterns are missing language features. If I see a pattern in my code, it usually means I&#039;m missing some abstraction.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?AreDesignPatternsMissingLanguageFeatures</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that design patterns are missing language features. If I see a pattern in my code, it usually means I&#8217;m missing some abstraction.<br />
<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?AreDesignPatternsMissingLanguageFeatures" rel="nofollow">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/Wiki?AreDesignPatternsMissingLanguageFeatures</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shey's Rebellion</title>
		<link>http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/2006/09/24/design-patterns-are-missing-language-features/comment-page-1/#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Shey's Rebellion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sheysrebellion.net/Blog/?p=19#comment-12</guid>
		<description>I think C# and the .net CLR don&#039;t fully implement meta programming. 

I&#039;m still going back to the &quot;Class&quot; Pattern in C.  You&#039;re creating structs and typedefs when what you really need are classes.  It&#039;s almost as if I&#039;m breaking the DRY principle by doing the same things over and over again.  Wouldn&#039;t it be cool if you could just create a &quot;factory pattern&quot; class that you could reuse?

I want to read Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler, but  it isn&#039;t available here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think C# and the .net CLR don&#8217;t fully implement meta programming. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m still going back to the &#8220;Class&#8221; Pattern in C.  You&#8217;re creating structs and typedefs when what you really need are classes.  It&#8217;s almost as if I&#8217;m breaking the DRY principle by doing the same things over and over again.  Wouldn&#8217;t it be cool if you could just create a &#8220;factory pattern&#8221; class that you could reuse?</p>
<p>I want to read Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler, but  it isn&#8217;t available here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Scheirman</title>
		<link>http://www.sheysrebellion.net/blog/2006/09/24/design-patterns-are-missing-language-features/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Scheirman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sheysrebellion.net/Blog/?p=19#comment-11</guid>
		<description>While dynamic (&quot;duck&quot;) typed languages like python or ruby allow for quick meta classes, the same can be done in C# (albeit a bit more work is required).  A Factory isn&#039;t used to overcome a language limitation IMO, it is to further supply encapsulation and most importantly: adhere to the DRY principle.

Also, in your point on why patterns are more like frameworks for solutions, rather than solutions themselves... I think that they are more portable this way, and are generic so that they may gain more usage.  No one solution will work for all types of software, but the community has extracted (as computer scientists do so well) a common set of tools that anyone can use (or not use) in their designs.

You should read Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler.  It supplies more concrete solutions to typical software problems.  It suggests an object model and interaction techniques for health care, insurance, and a few others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While dynamic (&#8220;duck&#8221;) typed languages like python or ruby allow for quick meta classes, the same can be done in C# (albeit a bit more work is required).  A Factory isn&#8217;t used to overcome a language limitation IMO, it is to further supply encapsulation and most importantly: adhere to the DRY principle.</p>
<p>Also, in your point on why patterns are more like frameworks for solutions, rather than solutions themselves&#8230; I think that they are more portable this way, and are generic so that they may gain more usage.  No one solution will work for all types of software, but the community has extracted (as computer scientists do so well) a common set of tools that anyone can use (or not use) in their designs.</p>
<p>You should read Analysis Patterns by Martin Fowler.  It supplies more concrete solutions to typical software problems.  It suggests an object model and interaction techniques for health care, insurance, and a few others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

