I'm sad to say that I completely agree.

The entire concept of design patterns, really. While I'll admit their book is widely misunderstood, and they address a lot of my concerns in the first few pages, the negative impact the book has had on software can't be overlooked. From the rampant misuse of patterns to the countless over-engineered systems they've inspired, their influence has caused far more problems than it solved.

The general understanding of design patterns is a problem as well. While broadly misunderstood as a 'language of design', the so-called patterns are not language agnostic. The explosion of 'new patterns' that followed further diluted any possible value that concept offered. Just replace the word 'pattern' with 'solution' next time your read about a pattern and you'll see what I mean. (That all stems from the *title* of the book! I've never seen a book's title alone cause so much confusion and harm.)

A note on that misunderstanding: The 'why' is often far more important than the 'what' when communicating with other programs. To say 'I used the visitor pattern here' gives you the 'what', but not the 'why'. There's also a strong indication there that the code is too complex to understand without hanging a common name around its neck.

Moving on... Sploski offered two points, to which I agree: 1) Patterns introduce unnecessary complexity. 2) Recurring use of patterns indicates a deficiency in the language. (There's also a discussion on c2 somewhere about that.) On (1) there's the use of patterns where far simpler solutions are more appropriate. They're often used here because too many developers think that using patterns mean their code is 'adheres to good principles of design'. This leads to a consequence in (2), related to my point that patterns are not language agnostic, which is the amazing amount of effort placed in to implementing patterns in languages that have no need for them.

So what about the premise? Are there, in fact, recurring design patterns? We'll never know. The GoF based their book on good feelings and personal experience, not actual research. You'd think if there were recurring solutions to common problems, they'd have been discovered -- though they're often simply invented, just like those in the book, by every neophyte developer out there. It's no wonder, then, that the term 'anti-pattern' found its way in to our vocabulary to combat the pattern explosion. I've even seen many of the GoF patterns described as anti-patterns. Being groundless, they're vulnerable to such subjective criticism.

Obvious questions like 'is this a recurring problem', 'is this solution effective', and 'is this solution efficient' never seem to enter the discussion. Without a lot of effort, you can't even begin the answer the first question, let alone start proposing solutions! Lacking actual research means that developers have no choice but to actively look for opportunities to use patterns (leading to pattern abuse) rather than simply determine if a particular pattern is appropriate based on the information they have available. That is, they can only ask 'can it be used' not 'should it be used'.

Patterns are folk wisdom, not engineering, and suffer the same problems. Next time you reach for the GoF book, ask yourself if you're putting butter on a burn.

I said no such thing!

I never said it was.

Did you read anything I posted? Fucking troll

You are! I've pointed out several times that the bulk of their software is not, in fact, little front-end apps. (From the OS to BES, there's a lot of non-Java code!) I've also pointed out, that even those front-end apps, while written in Java, rely on an entirely different API. Hell, just on their legendary security alone, Android can't even begin to compete. That is, your claim that it would have been 'easier' to switch to Android than QNX because their front-end apps were written in java is wrong in every possible way.

You're a willfully ignorant troll. Go away.

No one knows. Those who think they know all disagree with one another.

Really? I think the GOF should be round-up and shot. No other group has caused more harm to the industry.

There are a few languages I'd call works of genius, like LISP and Forth. C++, however, is not one of those languages.

Fortunately, more people are starting to recognize that. I'm amazed it took this long.

Where's Tablizer? He's owed some vindication.

You're just trolling now. At this point, we both know that isn't true. Insisting otherwise won't change history.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Android isn't a selling point. It's something informed buyers overlook, and the rest don't care about.

A good thing that never happened then!

You can predict the future! Amazing! How about this: What happens next year when BB has 128k screens and eleventy billion cores and users of last years Android phones see that; who's going to be envious?

To answer your question: No one. Because no one cares. All that matters to Passport users is "will this let me work more efficiently" It's an entirely different market than the market that you're in. You're in the market for a gameboy that sends text messages. A lot of smartphone users are as well.

The rest of us, well, we've got work to do. I mentioned earlier that my wife ditched her first and only Android phone for a BB. What I didn't tell you was that it wasn't the latest model, but an older one. It was slower and had a smaller display, but it was infinitely more useful to her. Managing her complex schedule and email was significantly easier and faster.

Different people have different needs. You want a toy. Passport and Classic users want a tool. You think BB should have abandoned their core market to sell silly playthings. They'd have been dead before the end of the quarter had they done something so foolish.

Go away now. I'm bored with your uninformed, ill-considered, ramblings.

Not a deep thinker, eh? It's an excellent choice for their target market -- business users. Go ahead and read the reviews. You'll be amazed at how good the passport is at handling actual work. See, some people need a phone to do work, not play angry birds or watch movies on a tiny screen. (Who does that anyway?)

You're joking, right? The little apps on the front end? There's a whole lot more to BB than brick breaker! Though even there your comment is foolish. Android's API was light-years behind RIM's. If you think it would have been "easier" for them to port their front-end apps you don't know much about Android or BB.

Sure. I can agree with that. Though I'm curious as to why you think people with superior products should toss them out because there exists a shitty, but popular, alternative? Should the guys at Bentley just close up shop because Toyota (or whatever) has the most popular car on the market?

Or would a computer analogy work better? Do you think that Apple should drop OSX and embrace Windows just because "it won"? Or do you think that such a decision would be unimaginably bad?

Okay. Do you have any actual reason why you think that they'd be doing better had they elected to use a competitors laughably inferior OS over their own?

Figures.

Or children. Everything from games to stuff for school seems to require flash.

It's still better, security wise, than installing an app for every little thing. That was really my whole point.

I'll agree with the AC here, we finally have an opportunity with HTML5 to abandon Flash. It'll take a while, but we can get there eventually. It's cool (on slashdot) to put-down HTML5, but it's the best opportunity to ditch Flash that we've ever had.

Because using Android instead of the dramatically superior OS they have was the only solution? Their massive investment in developer tools means they "failed to foresee the problem"? That's as delusional as a ZD Net editorial! (For years now, their mobile platform has been the simplest platform for developers to target, while still offering the most options to developers. All thanks to a massive push by BB to improve developer tools.)

Developing for Android is still a nightmare -- just about every Android developer will tell you the same. (I stopped supporting the platform half-way through my first port. It wasn't worth the headache.) As for the user side of things, well, I'll use my wife as an example as she has twice regretting getting an Android device. Her first (and only) Android phone didn't last two months before she gave up on it and replaced it with a BB. The Kindle Fire I got her for Christmas, to replace her much-loved playbook, has already caused her no end of frustration -- all over something as simple as opening and closing apps. (Can you believe that Android still handles that so poorly? WTF? Mozilla got it right, BB got it right, why the hell can't Android?)

It's pretty clear that using Android would have been a horrible mistake. Not just in the mobile market, but in every other market RIM competes. (They do more than make mobile phones, you know.)

They have a superior product. They're right to bet their future on it. The Passport and BB Classic are getting rave reviews, which is a positive sign for them. I doubt they'd even still be around had they make the mistake of investing in a shitty OS like Android. Do you honestly believe that being another me-too player offering the same second-rate product would have been a better path?

Again, no. Go read his post.

QNX

No. Not even close. That's about as far from what Chen suggested as I could possibly imagine.

Because the quickest way to success is to switch to an inferior technology from one of your competitors?

Yes, that's exactly where I expected an idea like that to form.