> Most of the OOP problems go away if you use more flexible programming languages or paradigms.
Spare us the myth. This isn't reddit.
Spare us the myth. This isn't reddit.
Perhaps you have something specific to share about why that or any other point is wrong? Perhaps an interesting viewpoint on myths and how they take hold?
This is primarily because of the languages books like Gang of Four use to illustrate design patterns.
In reality however, most design patterns date back to Smalltalk which (ignoring multiple-inheritance for the moment), provides the most flexible and dynamic representation of objects that I've seen to date.
----
Another myth is that design patterns were invented.
The the Gang of Four can be quoted as saying they merely are documenting patterns that will naturally occur in the course of writing code. If you use run-time-binding to determine an objects inteplementation, then congratulations you have Inversion of Control whether you want to call it that or not.
The whole purpose of design patterns is to give us a common language so we don't have to describe our code, but can simply call it by name.
It is not necessary in ST, because ST's syntax includes the semicolon operator for cascading messages to a single receiver. In effect, the pattern is "baked into the language."
Patterns are detected - abstracted from what experienced people usually do in certain circumstances.
But you could come up with that for yourself by comparing the need for a visitor pattern in, say, Java and Python respectively its implementation in both.
[EDIT] Of course other programming paradigms can develop other patterns, if they are confronted with problems they cannot solve from the outset. That was more raganwald's point.
Of course, that's the point of patterns.