James McCartney wrote:
Dear James:

It is curious but there is a general trend in all new computational paradigms
(AOSD, HyperJ, etc)
to be unable to discard design patterns and assert it is possible to simplify
them at least! And of course they forget that doing this introduce the same
faults they are critcizing in design patterns in the new techniques.
In the chapter about Does Aspect Oriented Programming make sense ? in
my Scientific Report Devising a generative morphodynamic level, see
homepage: http://www.lsi.usp.br/~lourenci  I have tried to cover the most
intriguing papers relating design patterns and other viewpoints about them (and
at least the references make evident if read carefully what I state above. They
complicate things instead of making things simple, and holistic and worse do not
complexify the world.)
In the  deep discussion with Jim Coplien who spearheaded the design pattern
movement, I finally realized there is indeed something special about the design
patterns.I believe James Noble( who was part of the prototype community)
and Robert Biddle  have been trying to unravel the design patterns' true nature.
This is rather concerned with the nature of literature I mean the fact literature
feeds on figural language especially metaphor and metonymy. A wonderful
book about this is Paul de Man's Allegories of Reading Figural language
in Rousseau, Nietzche, Rilke and Proust.The preface is orgasmic!
After twelve years old, I suffocated all my romantic trends especially
poetry! However since I am an architect and an architectural language
has the nature of Chinese, I mean obviously poetry, I reencountered
in part this split in my research. Having abandoned verbal languages,
I went so far that right now I am applying modulation to architecture,
symmetry groups of the plane and the dotless plane and computer science!
There is a trend to consider the aesthetic superiority of metaphor over
metonymy.Our first examples dealing with the rhetorical
questions were rhetorizations of grammar, figures generated
by syntactical paradigms, wehreas the Proust example could be
better described as a grammatization of rhetoric. By passing
from a paradigmatic structure based on contingent association
'such as metonymy, the mechanical, repetitive aspect of
grammatical forms is shown to be operative in a passage that
seemed at first sight to celebrate the self-willed and autonomous
inventiveness of a subject....Yet our reading of the Proust passage
shows that precisely when the highest claims are being made for
the unifying power of metaphor, these very images rely in fact on
the deceptive use of semi-automatic grammatical patterns. The
deconstruction of metaphor and of all rhetorical patterns such
as mimesis, paronomasia, or personification that use resemblance
 as a way to disguise differences, takes us back to the impersonal
precision of grammar and of a semiology derived from
grammatical patterns.
There seems to be a difference then between what I called the
rhetorization of grammar (as in rhetorical question) and
the grammatization of rhetoric, as in the readings of the
type sketched out in the passage from Proust.

Hence after the rhetorical reading of the Proust passage,
we can no longer believe the assertion made in this passage
about the intrinsic metaphysical superiority of metaphor over
What is implied here, is that I abandoned the direct  concern
with metaphor and centered my attention on the pragmatic
metonymic modes. Something like Rauschenberg's did (see
my III Scientific REport). Whilst Alexander embraced metaphor
in the A pattern language which inspired the design patterns!
Or better this tunes with Agile Software Development. Not being able to
define the essence and not feeling confident on metaphors let's look
for situations where art and poetry can occur! This is exactly what
Alistair Cockburn does!

And curiously this opened the gate for discourse!

And of course there are many leaps in the reasoning here but concluding
when I introduce modulation into my ecodesign model and its underlying
geometric model, that necessarily must be implemented by computer
I am introducing rhetorics into software systems or the multiplicity
of meanings!!!
And obviously all my attempt is to deconstruct "class-based languages"
A class for me is simply a pattern!
The non-attractive metonymic nature of  prototype based language especially
Self  is the key for expressiveness!!!Its hermeneutic nature or its nature
of a game, allowing the multiplicity of discourse through Kansas it doesn't matter
where you are sitting down in the world opens the gate to the multiplicity of
discourse and reaches the core of the Peircean semiotics based on the interpretant!

So please when you simplify don't forget that metaphor and metonymy are different
faces of the same coin. One cannot live without the other! I mean the what (Jim
Coplien's efforts in software) and the how (Alistair's efforts in software) must be
intertwined! (see my paper for rOOts conference in my homepage!).

I am sure software is inaugurating a luminous era and I hope 2003 will
be a bright Year for software development!

Best wishes,

Have there been any papers written on implementing design patterns in
delegation/object based languages? I'm interested in how delegation or
object based inheritance can simplify design. For example these
patterns from the Gamma, et al book seem to become non-issues in such a
language :
Prototype - built in to object based languages.
Singleton - built in to object based languages.
Chain of Responsibility - can be done easily by delegating to next
object in chain.
State - can be done easily with an assignable parent slot.
Strategy - can be done easily with an assignable parent slot.
Decorator - can be done easily with an assignable parent slot.
Proxy - proxy can delegate to the other object.
But I am also and perhaps more interested in design idioms that
naturally arise out of differential programming, beyond the few that
are mentioned in the papers on the Self site.

--- james mccartney

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/