> Patterns are still patterns whether you acknowledge them or not, and they are not defined by the LOC or number of classes they require in language X.
> Refusing to admit that patterns are used hurts your development team and the community, because patterns (simply identifying them) serve a very important purpose.
> Well, design patterns are just like [agile] metaphors, but they are meant for code, not UI.
> For instance, consider the factory pattern versus the builder pattern. Both are concerned with creating objects, but a builder is also concerned with the assembling of the object. This is a relatively subtle but pretty noticeable difference. Telling someone you are using a "builder pattern" should immediately ring a bell in their heads saying, "oh, it’s not just a factory".
Patterns are specific nomenclature not implementation.