Re: Object equals Relation

[....]
> > Patterns are often a symptom, not a solution, just like the Goto
> > days. They are an (futile) attempt to reign in run-away complexity.
>
> The APL perspective (to draw in a very different community) would be
> to term them to be "idioms."
>
> In APL, there are all sorts of combinations of operators that come up
> again and again, and get called "idioms."
>
> I think the "pattern" movement is all about recognizing and
> not-quite-formalizing sets of useful "idioms."
>
> In human language, "idioms" are the bits of phrasing that represent
> somewhat arbitrary "namings" of things. They are convenient for
> getting ideas across quickly, _when everyone listening understands the
> idiom_.
>
> Idioms aren't "proven to be right;" they are agreed upon as useful for
> communication.
>
> And I think that's _exactly_ what happens with "Patterns." They're
> not mathematically provable; they are just idioms that people agree on
> as useful.

A better way to describe it would be to compare GOF patterns to doing calculus via adding up rectangles under the curve.

Relational approaches are closer to turning the relationships of those patterns into more of a conceptual notation instead of physical bricks and mortar.

The "equations" return virtual "views" instead of physically building them by hand, like GOF does.

Thanks for your feedback. I agree with your consultant dig, BTW :-)
-T- Received on Fri Jun 14 2002 - 06:15:03 CEST