Re: Database Design Patterns?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:22:17 GMT
Message-ID: <ZFrQh.18824$PV3.195349_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Doug Morse wrote:
>>
>>>hi bob,
>>
>>>as an academic in both computer science and cognitive psychology, i
>>>couldn't agree with you more re: the importance of a thorough training
>>>on the fundamentals. and certainly "half-baked" recipies are of
>>>little value, if not outright damaging.
>>
>>>that said, though, pattern recognition tied to appropriate actions is
>>>without question one of the core aspects of expert functioning and
>>>behavior. "patterns" books in any field that accurately capture and
>>>represent how experts "organize their world" and "see things" and then
>>>take action on what they see will always be of great value.
>>
>>With all due respect, that's what the fundamentals teach. I am reminded
>>of the educational propaganda my sister showed me when she was studying
>>to become a teacher. Observing that expert readers pay more attention to
>>consonants than vowels etc. is no excuse for not teaching phonics when
>>that is exactly how all of those exper readers learned to read.
>>
>>
>>>of course, as with anything else, there are good ways and bad or
>>>"half-baked" ways of going about something. i guess my point is
>>>simply to caution against "throwing out the baby with the bath water":
>>>patterns, done right, are an invaluable type of knowledge
>>>representation and knowledge sharing.
>>
>>The GoF style patterns are bath water not baby.
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:22:17 GMT
Message-ID: <ZFrQh.18824$PV3.195349_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:12 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote: >
>>Doug Morse wrote:
>>
>>>hi bob,
>>
>>>as an academic in both computer science and cognitive psychology, i
>>>couldn't agree with you more re: the importance of a thorough training
>>>on the fundamentals. and certainly "half-baked" recipies are of
>>>little value, if not outright damaging.
>>
>>>that said, though, pattern recognition tied to appropriate actions is
>>>without question one of the core aspects of expert functioning and
>>>behavior. "patterns" books in any field that accurately capture and
>>>represent how experts "organize their world" and "see things" and then
>>>take action on what they see will always be of great value.
>>
>>With all due respect, that's what the fundamentals teach. I am reminded
>>of the educational propaganda my sister showed me when she was studying
>>to become a teacher. Observing that expert readers pay more attention to
>>consonants than vowels etc. is no excuse for not teaching phonics when
>>that is exactly how all of those exper readers learned to read.
>>
>>
>>>of course, as with anything else, there are good ways and bad or
>>>"half-baked" ways of going about something. i guess my point is
>>>simply to caution against "throwing out the baby with the bath water":
>>>patterns, done right, are an invaluable type of knowledge
>>>representation and knowledge sharing.
>>
>>The GoF style patterns are bath water not baby.
> > Given that the field is currently lumped with OO, encapsulation, data > identity, magic OIDS, etc., then at least with some good design > patterns something with the semblance of working and being > maintainable can appear. For that alone I always encourage my students > to check out the GoF book. I think of it as rose-scented bath water > maybe.
I suppose that is true. If one starts with an ad hoc collection of features suitable for making large unpredictable state machines out of small predictable state machines, only one pattern has fundamental meaning. Everything else is a kludge.
Of course, one prefers kludges that more-or-less work over those that don't. Received on Tue Apr 03 2007 - 14:22:17 CEST