Timeline for What were the Design Patterns of the procedural programming era?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 20, 2014 at 8:31 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | A design pattern is the same as he's done with C&P Cobol, a singleton is always coded the exact same way - you can even get some IDEs to spit out the boilerplate for you now. That's nothing significantly different from cut and paste. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 7:45 | comment | added | Vorac | Hmm, I understand this copying code around as the same as a library, though more primitive. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 18:31 | comment | added | Izkata | @GilbertLeBlanc Yeah, that works too. What I meant by "at least as we use the term today", I meant more the layout of the code itself, rather than how the code comes into being in a new program. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 18:09 | comment | added | Gilbert Le Blanc | @Izkata: It's not really a coding pattern, since you're avoiding most of the coding. How about a "template pattern"? You're right that copy/paste/change is not a good design by today's standards. Back then, it was the best we had. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 18:04 | comment | added | Izkata | It doesn't feel right to call "copy/paste/change" a "design pattern" (at least as we use the term today) - perhaps that's more of a "coding pattern"? | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 16:48 | comment | added | dbasnett | How about BONSOP, which is still used today ;) | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 14:55 | comment | added | Kevin Flynn | +1. I had the same experience with Cobol, Pascal and teaching myself Basic on a Vic-20 back when. There were many things that I reused and copied around. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 14:38 | history | answered | Gilbert Le Blanc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |