First of all design patterns were not some god given solutions. Those are solutions gathered from existing implementations and authors just gave names to those solutions.

So they will be present in well designed systems just that they are not called by their „book name”.

Then I clearly see it in all new frameworks just that each framework has their own name for implementation of the pattern.

Patterns were mostly named so people can discuss easier about solutions that are there.

I will quote first sentence of foreword from my copy of the book „All well-structured object oriented architectures are full of patterns.”

▲

bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-]

Everything about object oriented from the book was added by editors because OO was the fad at the time. Most of the patterns apply to other styles of code. The authors were not confined to studying OO programs

▲

ozim 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think we are writing about the same book: ”Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software”.

That’s the one I write about, it has foreword from Grady Booch and was tied to OOPSLA meeting with C++ and Smalltalk examples. To add OOP stuff to it sounds like a different book because that book is about OOP by definition.

▲

bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-]

That book. The title was not from the main author.

▲

ahartmetz 4 days ago | parent [-]

AFAIK, the title is never chosen by the author (except maybe for the most successful ones)

	▲	bluGill 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Pretty much and so you need to be careful about what you state about any book based on title. Though most of the time the title doesn't mislead this baddly. of course at the time they really thought nobody would question if oo was the best way to program so it didn't seem usefully misleading. Patterns apply to non oo programning as well

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]