Me. I'd never even heard of anti-patterns until sometime in the last 2 weeks. I did have some familiarity with rudimentary patterns (singleton, flyweight, etc.)
Don't know if that's typical or not. I'm betting it's more common than you think and less so than I do. I think Paulo's approach of show them the greatness and if they don't get it or want more examples of why it's great then give them anti-patterns. If they see the greatness and want to use it then take them straight into using Avalon, coming back to anti-patterns when you talk about component design. Corey On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 20:43, Pete Carapetyan wrote: > Paulo Gaspar wrote: > > >I follow the Anti-Pattern thing since 4 years ago. I like it. It > >is a great argument. > > > >What I disagree is about making the central/introductory argument > >for Avalon. > > > >First show how it is great, THEN show how it avoids bad things. > > > Makes the assumption that the person being showed has the same sense of > what is great that you or I do. > > My sense of the market is that without anti-patterns, the great features > of Avalon resonate like a good yawn to the typical developer. But I'd be > happy to be proven wrong. Can you offer any observations that show > developers who even give Avalon a second click, without a sense of the > anti-patterns already deep in their bones? > > The best use of an anti-pattern as a communication device that I have > seen is a crack that my nephew was walking around with a couple years ago. > > *New breakthroughs in toilet paper technology.* > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
