Talk:Design Patterns

Year of publication?
At the bottom it says books from 1994, but is this correct? I would expect a line like: The book was first published in 19xx, with a much improved second edition in 19xx ...

No, this is the correct version. We're still using it as a Textbook. The book basically is the bible of Design Patterns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.70.20 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2007‎ (UTC)

Delete "Case study" section?
The "Case study" section has been tagged as "contain[ing] an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience," and indeed the section is a lengthy, play-by-play summary of one section of the Design Patterns book. I don't think there's much to salvage here; there is already a good summary of the core of the book in the "Patterns by type" section, and the case study is mostly illustrative and not a good fit for an encyclopedia. If no one objects here, I will remove it, and probably trim the "Introduction" section too. Rublov (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅I think this section, while interesting somewhere else, is not suitable for Wikipedia.--Gorpik (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rublov (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Criticism has been directed at the concept of software design patterns generally, and at Design Patterns specifically."
I've noticed that "Design Patterns" is a proper name but it doesn't make sense to me that it seems to be a subset of "software design patterns". If an architect uses design patterns to build a bridge it surely doesn't depend on software design patterns. --85.199.68.80 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally like the Criticisms section to be expanded. There are swathes of the software industry that have rejected this tome and its conclusions as "borderline nonsensical". Also there were some good analyses years ago, though of course I can't find them now, about how the only way this book makes any sense in a wide sense is if you are familiar with programming in SmallTalk, and how generalised languages, with OO features or not, do NOT magically conform to these forms. 2406:2D40:41A3:9910:0:0:0:51F (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguate (Gang of Four 1995:18)
How is (Gang of Four 1995:18) supposed to be interpreted? 209.221.240.192 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I guess it means chapter 18 of the 1995 edition of the book. But I don't think this bibliography format is standard in Wikipedia. Gorpik (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)