Got it on my bookshelf, along with a couple others from the same series. It's an excellent book, very readable, and IMO absolutely indispensable for anyone who wants to make a career in architecture or civil planning. I don't know how much I agree with Alexander's opinion that ultralightweight concrete is the future of residential construction, but I do like his writing style.
You can also find books on business and management (Anti-Patterns (Brown et al., John Wiley & Sons) springs to mind) that use the term 'pattern' to discuss business processes and human interaction. Nor should we forget the fields of knitting and metal casting. I don't know of any significant body of work within the literature of computer programming that uses 'pattern' exclusively of OOP, though.
Design Patterns (Gamma et al.) and various papers in PLoPD 1-4 (Addison-Wesley, various authors, various editors) cite APL as a source of inspiration, but then use 'pattern' to refer to collections of objects without additional qualification. UML and its associated literature don't even mention APL as far as I know, but UML clearly contains notation for patterns. I intend to cite APL in my chapter on patterns (the above is from the chapter on OOP), so I should end up being consistent with established usage.
In reply to Re: Re: RFC - OOP and Turing machines
by mstone
in thread RFC - OOP and Turing machines
by mstone
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |