General talk about software patterns

[Ron Goldman <rgoldman AT cs.stanford.edu>]

On Feb 19, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Joseph Bergin wrote:
> I've also suggested that the solution be stated strongly in an imperative 
> form.

Joe,

Regarding the "imperative form" part, I just ran across this last week:

"Also, the <i>descriptions</i> that comment completed work are better guides 
for <i>new</i> work than prescriptive instructions. We've found that 
sequential descriptions, in an order reflecting the emergence of a coherent 
whole, <i>are more generative than instructions.</i> The reasons for this 
have to do with our natural ability to make coherent things, but it's enough 
for now to say that descriptions are simply more evocative and less 
restrictive than prescriptions."

This is describing some work done back in 1997 on writing sequences by 
Christopher Alexander & Greg Bryant. 

[quote taken from:
   http://www.gregbryant.com/grogbrat/aspen97/RANDP2.html

 for larger context see:
   http://www.gregbryant.com/grogbrat/aspen97/index.html ]

"Imperative" strikes me as generally being prescriptive. Though I just looked 
ata couple of patterns in APL and they certainly seemed to express the 
"Therefore" part very prescriptively, e.g. in 221 Natural Doors and Windows:

"On no account use standard doors or windows. Make each window a different 
size, according to its place."

So maybe his work after APL caused Alexander to change his mind on this.

-- Ron --

p.s. Great to see some actual discussion on this mailing list!