General talk about software patterns

[Al Boldi <a1426z AT gawab.com>]

Ralph Johnson wrote:
> I've heard this called many things.  I don't like any of those names
> because they can be interpreted in many ways.  i don't like Messaging,
> either. Perhaps it is about parallel programming, and the pattern is to
> avoid shared memory and communicate only by sending messages.  Perhaps it
> is about distributed systems, and explores the difference between
> synchronous and asynchronous communication.  No, this pattern is about
> software
> architecture, and is about how to keep loose coupling between modules. 
> Pick a name that can't be misinterpreted.

Well, actually quite the opposite!

The biggest problem I have with design patterns is this drive to obscure a 
simple concept starting with its name.  Calling it anything other than a 
"Messaging Design Pattern", which most devs understand on the fly, would only 
obscure things from the beginning.

And the fact that it can be interpreted in many ways, yet within the 
"messaging concept", should be seen as a sign of versatility; definitly a 
PLUS!

So, my recommendation would be to revisit most Design Pattern names and try 
to 
align them to realistic well known terminology.

Thanks!

--
Al