patterns" and what those might be for erlang. In the midst of this
thread the following statement popped up...
"The OTP is a collection of GoF-style patterns for Erlang."
And I had a reaction to the current state of patterns, generally.
I think this list, as well as the software community as a whole, has
lost sight of the original intent of the "patterns movement".
The original intent of a "pattern" is the format of the information,
more than the information per se.
The format should be written in (one of several) pattern styles. The
overall presentation of some set of patterns should form a "patterns
So to say the "OTP is a collection of patterns" is true only in the
worst definition of "pattern".
A really useful pattern language for OTP would guide the programmer
from some initial kind of problem through the application of some
patterns that address that problem and associated forces that would
direct the programmer through a set of choices and partial solutions,
toward an overall solution.
Really good patterns take a lot of effort. This alone explains the
current state of patterns, generally.