This is a great take on the "Design Pattern" fatigue that many experienced developers feel. You’ve captured the crucial distinction between patterns as a *shared vocabulary* and patterns as *rigid dogma*.
It’s particularly insightful how you touch on the idea that many classic patterns are essentially "workarounds" for missing language features. When we prioritize the pattern over the problem, we often end up with an architectural shell that hides the actual domain logic. Your post is a refreshing reminder that the goal of clean code isn't to mirror a textbook, but to make the intent of the software as transparent as possible. Thanks for sharing this perspective!
This is a great take on the "Design Pattern" fatigue that many experienced developers feel. You’ve captured the crucial distinction between patterns as a *shared vocabulary* and patterns as *rigid dogma*.
It’s particularly insightful how you touch on the idea that many classic patterns are essentially "workarounds" for missing language features. When we prioritize the pattern over the problem, we often end up with an architectural shell that hides the actual domain logic. Your post is a refreshing reminder that the goal of clean code isn't to mirror a textbook, but to make the intent of the software as transparent as possible. Thanks for sharing this perspective!