A collection of abstract patterns • Hacker News Board

Re: A collection of abstract patterns

#11

Post by thom » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

poat wrote: post #8

thom wrote: post #6

Yeah, but if you're a functional human being, you don't _need_ patterns.

That's like saying you don't need math. For the most part, in everyday life, that's true, but there are cases where functional human beings disagree, or we find ourselves in novel situations that we don't know how to handle. In those cases, we need new ways to think and communicate. Intuition works great for catching a ball, but you'll need math to land a rocket on mars.

This was my attempt to joke about the fact that every time design patterns in software architecture are mentioned, someone pipes up about how design patterns aren't useful in functional languages because it's all built in.

Re: A collection of abstract patterns

#12

Post by snorkel » Thu, Jul 14, 2016, 11:20 PM UTC

Interesting ... but I still prefer WikiPedia.

Re: A collection of abstract patterns

#13

Post by poat » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 12:18 AM UTC

snorkel wrote: post #12

Interesting ... but I still prefer WikiPedia.

Wikipedia is an incredible resource and I have relied on it heavily in the development of this project. But for specific areas, an integrated, specialized approach gives you more control over things like organization, format, and what content to include or exclude.

Re: A collection of abstract patterns

#14

Post by language » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

fatdog wrote: post #5

These are fairly standard concepts for architects. Engineers deconstruct problems into implementations. Architects abstract problems into the rules that govern them. Both arrive in similar places, but usually for different reasons.

> Both arrive in similar places, but usually for different reasons.

Kind of how I take philosophers/scientists to be (and other dichotomies that are variations on that kind of pattern). There's a funny [and highly paraphrased] quote I use from Heinz von Foerster that I think is highly relevant:

"The reductionist eventually comes to know everything about nothing (by way of distinction) - the wholist eventually comes to know nothing about everything (by way of generalization)."

Re: A collection of abstract patterns

#15

Post by Retra » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

poat wrote: post #8

thom wrote: post #6

Yeah, but if you're a functional human being, you don't _need_ patterns.

That's like saying you don't need math. For the most part, in everyday life, that's true, but there are cases where functional human beings disagree, or we find ourselves in novel situations that we don't know how to handle. In those cases, we need new ways to think and communicate. Intuition works great for catching a ball, but you'll need math to land a rocket on mars.

You don't need math 'the language', but only because your ad-hoc inferences are suitable. You do need math 'the models' because you can't think without those things. The subject of math isn't actually esoteric. It's the community and conventions that are esoteric.