Design patterns are bug reports against your programming language. -- Peter Norvig
Java sure has a lot of patterns.
Java sure has a lot of patterns.
2. Extending existing class with implicit conversion.
Edit: Actually, I think your request is even more ridiculous. If what Norvig is saying is true, then every language has patterns, because every language has bugs. So you are asking to substantiate his statement by providing a counterexample.
It's Pattern => Language bug, not Language bug => Pattern. You are assuming the opposite meaning.
In other words, not all bugs are patterns but all patterns are necesarily bugs (not IMO, it's just the interpretation).
Anyway, what I really meant was that every language has semantic limitations that can manifest as patterns which the users have to apply. Even Lisp (static type checking) or Haskell (dependent types).