The critique of GoF presented is superficial. The main difference being GoF's 'how' against Alexander's 'what' doesn't come from GoF's misunderstanding of Alexander's original work. It comes from a different role of architecture of a building versus an architecture of a computer program. It's easier to say about Alexander's pattern that it provides an answer for a 'what' question because the building's architecture is something that people interact with directly with all their senses. Hence a pattern like "159. LIGHT ON TWO SIDES OF EVERY ROOM" ( http://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/apl159/apl159.h... ) seems like an end in itself when compared to eg. a iterator pattern, which obviously always will be described merely as a mean to some more general functionality of the application.

The truth is, "LIGHT ON TWO SIDES OF EVERY ROOM" is also a mean - a mean to making a room more bright, pleasant and friendly . If it feels more substantial than an iterator pattern, it's just because we directly interact with an architecture of a building in contrast to the architecture of a software, which is always hidden.

There's nothing wrong with GoF, it just follows from the essential quality of a computer software.