>>1
I was a EXPERT PROGRAMMER before I purchased the book "Head First Design Patterns". As such, I got only an couple good things out of it. It has lots of pictures, so if you are a visual learner it will be for you!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 13:56
You just bought it 'cause of the girl on the cover, didn't you?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 14:07
>>5
I'd like to head my first into her design patterns, if you know what I mean.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 14:19
I bought SICP because there's a wizard on the cover.
All the "Head First" books seem to have a MySpace angle pose on the cover...
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 18:14
>>4
I don't consider myself an EXPERT PROGRAMMER just yet, so hopefully i'll get more out of it than you did.
>>5
No, I bought it cuz it looks more interesting than the GoF book.
The chick on the front looks like an old chick that the marketing team felt could be made to look young (hence the pig tails & angle). but i'd still >>6 her
I had a design pattern fanboi on my team for a project in university. We had to make a simple game. The design he came up with was so ridiculously overengineered, it was 20 pages or so of diagrams of observers, singletons, factories, visitors, etc.
He told us he could implement it easily. After a couple of weeks, the result was barely functional, and a functional equivalent with a normal design could have probably been made in two days. In the end, we barely passed the course.
>>18
Design patterns suck. They're too often overused and abused -- for every place a design pattern is applied correctly, it's mashed and mangled a hundred times where it doesn't belong.
If it was your team, the fault is partly yours. You should have had the balls to tell him to sit down and shut the fuck up, rather than be passive-aggressive about it. Sure, you step on people's toes, but that's the only way anything useful can ever get done.
>>20
It had to be an education game. We went with a top-down view game where you run around the map answering questions.
>>21
He really wanted to do all the programming, and unlike the rest of us he actually had a job as a programmer (C++), so we went along with it. Anyway, it was a learning experience.
Reading just a sample of that book makes me want to throw up...IN REAL LIFE.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 12:28
OK, I looked, out of curiosity. PIG DISGUSTING.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 12:52
Fuckers with their examples with ducks made me think they were going to end the first chapter with duck typing, turns out it's about the Stategy Pattern a.k.a. the My Shitty Language Has Neither First-Class Functions Nor Function Pointers Pattern.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 14:27
I never read any book about design patterns because I knew people who did and they would never shut up about them. Those people were so fucking annoying that I didn't want even risk turning into them. I get why design patterns are useful (a pre-assembled way of making up for the lack of some feature in your language), but I don't get what all the hype is about.
Why the fuck some people become so fanatic about design patterns that they end up overdesigning every shitty piece of code they have to turn out? Also, is UML really useful?
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 14:39
I read it but got lost in their explanation of the ``Anus Pattern''
>>33
Completely seriously, UML-like constructs and design patterns are both very useful for the same thing: inter-developer communication. Forcing strict compliance to the latest UML standards of modeling is fail. Copypasta of design patterns is doing it wrong. Overuse of design patterns is ALSO doing it wrong. A peppering of a few UML like diagrams to show connections between things and enumerate their parts can be very helpful, especially when working with multiple developers. Being able to say "the thing you're doing with that OBSERVER" is much more clear and concise than saying "the thing you're doing with that function/object that sends data over a specified interface to other functions/objects when an event or change occurs relating to the first function/object that the others may want to know about".
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 16:32
>>37
Yes, but why do some people get addicted to desgin patterns, can't shut up about them and design their code so that it's made entirely out of patterns?
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 16:35
>>38
A certain percentage of the populace is mentally underdeveloped.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-01 16:44
>>37 Completely seriously, UML-like constructs and design patterns are both very useful for the same thing: inter-developer communication. Forcing strict compliance to the latest UML standards of modeling is fail.
So flow charts (an octogenarian concept) are useful. UML itself is just a fail-filled attempt to standardize something that really shouldn't be used extensively enough to need it.