|
|
|
|
# Design Patterns Are Used to Name Solution, Not Find Them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the times I saw design patterns being applied, they were applied as a
|
|
|
|
|
way to find a solution, so you end up twisting a solution -- and, sometimes,
|
|
|
|
|
the problem it self -- to fit the pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that the heavy use of "let's apply _this_ design pattern" before
|
|
|
|
|
even understanding the problem -- or even trying to solve it -- comes as a
|
|
|
|
|
form of [cargo cult](../../teams/cargo-cult.md): "We saw that people
|
|
|
|
|
used this pattern and solved their problem, so let's use it too and it will
|
|
|
|
|
solve our problem". Or, worse: "Design pattern is described by _Famous
|
|
|
|
|
Person_, so we must use it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the thing: Design pattern should _not_ be used as a way to find
|
|
|
|
|
solution to any problems. You may use some of them as base for your solution,
|
|
|
|
|
but you must focus on the _problem_, not the _pattern_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Do a visitor pattern will solve this?" is the wrong question. "What should we
|
|
|
|
|
do to solve our problem?" is the real question. Once you went there and solved
|
|
|
|
|
the problem you may look back and see if it is a visitor pattern -- or whatever
|
|
|
|
|
pattern. If it doesn't, that's alright, 'cause you _solved the problem_. If it
|
|
|
|
|
did... well, congratulations, you now know how to name your solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this happening a lot: People have a problem; people decided to use a
|
|
|
|
|
pattern; the pattern doesn't actually solve the problem (not in the 100% mark,
|
|
|
|
|
but above 50%); what happens then is that people start twisting the problem to
|
|
|
|
|
fit the pattern or, worse, add new layers to transform the problem into the
|
|
|
|
|
pattern.
|
