>The book didn't introduce people to design patterns, it invented the concept within the discipline of software programming.
By introduced I mean, introduced to the world for the first time. Invented is debatable concept as in was math invented or discovered? I avoid that debate by using the word "introduced."
>Perhaps one needs to have been in industry before and after this book to appreciate how it introduced a common vocabulary, a mechanism for documenting and sharing experience, and a framework for thinking about common problems.
Humans invent vocabulary for everything that they do, giving patterns names is inevitable. I would hardly call it revolutionary. This book just gave the concept of naming patterns a meta name in itself: "Design patterns." I think it's good that this was given a name but its importance is largely exaggerated.
Case in point: Other disciplines of programming don't use the term "Design patterns" or formal pattern names that frequently. In fact, technically, there are tons and tons of "Design patterns" in procedural programming, declarative programming and functional programming, yet experts in these respective fields don't feel the need to give these concepts over-inflated and complicated nomenclature.
Take currying for example. Functional programmers don't call it the "Curry pattern" nor do they refer to it as a design pattern (even though it technically is). A name just arose naturally. No need to give the concept of naming concepts another word.
To take the illustration even further, imagine driving techniques. Should I give the concept of naming driving techniques some name to exaggerate its importance? Perhaps I can, I'll call it: "Vehicular Translation patterns." And instead of talking about cars using regular English like a normal person I'll just communicate like this: "Execute the drift pattern in composition with the slide pattern and inverse throttle pattern to maneuver through that turn." Talking like this helps me sound smarter while obfuscating communication to the point where it can only be understood by a select few. The book design patterns introduced to the programming world what could potentially be done for driving as well. Needless to say, if it's pointless to do this for driving then does that mean it's pointless to do for programming? In my opinion the answer to that question is, "Yes."
In short, use english for most concepts and name things only where it matters and as it comes naturally. No need to invent an entire discipline and inflate it with made up epistemology.
I realize race car driving does have it's own nomenclature but it's not over used to the extent of design patterns nor did they feel the need to give the nomenclature it's own nomenclature (vehicle translation patterns, VTS theory for short)