Related
Almost everywhere I worked I met lots of people who didn't care that they produced massive amounts of boilerplate code.
For me this is one of the worst things ever, it leads to errors, it is boring and it increases the noise.
Worst example may be even Microsofts unwillingness to give us a better syntax for this annoying "INotifyPropertyChanged" - stuff. You can't use automatically generated properties, you have to create a big redundancy (replicating the property name in the call to "OnPropertyChanged" or whatever your raiser method is called).
Some people go as far as to accept that most programs in many programming languages consist of mostly the same repeated code (noise), not interesting stuff (signal). See MSDN - examples for example, there is so much unneeded, repeated code all over the place (the horrible "INotifyPropertyChanged" - pattern that ruins all the flow being only the tip of the iceberg).
However, when I raise this issue and propose solutions like AOP (PostSharp.NET) or using delegates (for the non - C# - folks: anonymous functions, often realized using a lambda operator), all I get is "we don't care".
Anyone else here troubled by the insane amount of noise introduced by boilerplate code and who wants to think about ways to push solutions to the boilerplate - issue?
For what it's worth, I'm completely on your side.
The boilerplate folks argue that the repetitive, redundant code is "automatic" or "consistent" and therefore doesn't contribute to code complexity. Often when a language forces developers to create boilerplate, the industry creates IDEs and other crutches to automate the process. Then, when the apparent cost of producing that boilerplate code approaches zero, people think it doesn't cost anything.
They're wrong: Boilerplate code contributes to code bulk, and anyone maintaining code has to dig through the irrelevant code to get at the important parts. Also, since auto-generated code can and often does get edited, it can hide bugs introduced by typos, incomplete renaming or other accidents. The cost of boilerplate code is not in its creation but in its maintenance - which many projects try to ignore completely.
In the '80s, I saw trade mags plastered with ads for memory leak debuggers for C++, and it was an obvious sign to me that memory management in C++ is seriously broken. Now, in the vicinity of Java and C#, I see a proliferation of code generating assists, and that indicates to me that those languages have issues that would be better solved elsewhere.
Scala has issues of its own, but I love what they've done with properties and auto-initializing constructors.
Just kill'em. No, really, if someone writes boilerplate code and doesn't care to improve it, I doubt we may call him professional. It often happens that management wants to see tasks done fast and only thing that's left is to push out some write-only boilerplate code just to make them happy. If your management encourages such approach - change your job.
Sometimes someone has a great idea that solves a problem. But as time passes, people forget why it was a great idea and try to use it in ways that end up causing problems as bad (or worse) than what the idea was originally supposed to solve.
Example:
I'm sure that distributed source
control is sufficiently
counterintuitive that people try to
establish conventions that defeat the
point of distributed source control.
Example 2:
it's very natural to think that when
you're writing some code, you should
handle all errors that could possibly
arrise. But a function doesn't always
have enough information to handle the
error properly, so all it can do is
somehow tell whoever called it that
the error occured. Passing errors up
the call stack by hand is tedious, so
exceptions were invented. With no
extra typing on the part of the
programmer, exceptions will bubble up
the call stack until somebody can do
something with them. It seems like
checked exceptions, at least in
practice, tarnish the awesomeness of
exceptions. At best, the programmer
has to tediously work her way up any
possible call stack, specifying that
every method throws a given exception
up to the point where it can be
handled (if it can be handled). Worse,
she might swallow the exception to
avoid the chore!
What are some other examples where an approach that seems like the common-sense thing to do is actually recreating a problem that had been solved in some way?
Point of this question: internalizing what is wrong with the common-sense "obvious" solution is a very good way of developing an intuition for how and why to use the initially counterintuitive elegant solution.
Hmmm..... let me think... what's with the foundation on which the web works - stateless HTTP on which many stateful frameworks have been built (ASP.NET, JSF etc.) that completely discard the stateless nature of the protocol? Well, not discard it in their implementation but discard it for their users - developers, who not even knowing anything about basic web elements try to pack megabytes of serialized objects into pages which leads to performance loss and tremendous consumption of traffic and server resources.
Would it fall into you conception definition?
You're right that there's many examples of this with DVCS. The most common one is to use DVCS like Subversion by always pushing on any commit or going days without even bothering to commit.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
As we program, we all develop practices and patterns that we use and rely on. However, over time, as our understanding, maturity, and even technology usage changes, we come to realize that some practices that we once thought were great are not (or no longer apply).
An example of a practice I once used quite often, but have in recent years changed, is the use of the Singleton object pattern.
Through my own experience and long debates with colleagues, I've come to realize that singletons are not always desirable - they can make testing more difficult (by inhibiting techniques like mocking) and can create undesirable coupling between parts of a system. Instead, I now use object factories (typically with a IoC container) that hide the nature and existence of singletons from parts of the system that don't care - or need to know. Instead, they rely on a factory (or service locator) to acquire access to such objects.
My questions to the community, in the spirit of self-improvement, are:
What programming patterns or practices have you reconsidered recently, and now try to avoid?
What did you decide to replace them with?
//Coming out of university, we were taught to ensure we always had an abundance
//of commenting around our code. But applying that to the real world, made it
//clear that over-commenting not only has the potential to confuse/complicate
//things but can make the code hard to follow. Now I spend more time on
//improving the simplicity and readability of the code and inserting fewer yet
//relevant comments, instead of spending that time writing overly-descriptive
//commentaries all throughout the code.
Single return points.
I once preferred a single return point for each method, because with that I could ensure that any cleanup needed by the routine was not overlooked.
Since then, I've moved to much smaller routines - so the likelihood of overlooking cleanup is reduced and in fact the need for cleanup is reduced - and find that early returns reduce the apparent complexity (the nesting level) of the code. Artifacts of the single return point - keeping "result" variables around, keeping flag variables, conditional clauses for not-already-done situations - make the code appear much more complex than it actually is, make it harder to read and maintain. Early exits, and smaller methods, are the way to go.
Trying to code things perfectly on the first try.
Trying to create perfect OO model before coding.
Designing everything for flexibility and future improvements.
In one word overengineering.
Hungarian notation (both Forms and Systems).
I used to prefix everything. strSomeString or txtFoo.
Now I use someString and textBoxFoo. It's far more readable and easier for someone new to come along and pick up. As an added bonus, it's trivial to keep it consistant -- camelCase the control and append a useful/descriptive name. Forms Hungarian has the drawback of not always being consistent and Systems Hungarian doesn't really gain you much. Chunking all your variables together isn't really that useful -- especially with modern IDE's.
The "perfect" architecture
I came up with THE architecture a couple of years ago. Pushed myself technically as far as I could so there were 100% loosely coupled layers, extensive use of delegates, and lightweight objects. It was technical heaven.
And it was crap. The technical purity of the architecture just slowed my dev team down aiming for perfection over results and I almost achieved complete failure.
We now have much simpler less technically perfect architecture and our delivery rate has skyrocketed.
The use of caffine. It once kept me awake and in a glorious programming mood, where the code flew from my fingers with feverous fluidity. Now it does nothing, and if I don't have it I get a headache.
Commenting out code. I used to think that code was precious and that you can't just delete those beautiful gems that you crafted. I now delete any commented-out code I come across unless there's a TODO or NOTE attached because it's too perilous to leave it in. To wit, I've come across old classes with huge commented-out portions and it really confused me why they were there: were they recently commented out? is this a dev environment change? why does it do this unrelated block?
Seriously consider not commenting out code and just deleting it instead. If you need it, it's still in source control. YAGNI though.
The overuse / abuse of #region directives. It's just a little thing, but in C#, I previously would use #region directives all over the place, to organize my classes. For example, I'd group all class properties together in a region.
Now I look back at old code and mostly just get annoyed by them. I don't think it really makes things clearer most of the time, and sometimes they just plain slow you down.
So I have now changed my mind and feel that well laid out classes are mostly cleaner without region directives.
Waterfall development in general, and in specific, the practice of writing complete and comprehensive functional and design specifications that are somehow expected to be canonical and then expecting an implementation of those to be correct and acceptable. I've seen it replaced with Scrum, and good riddance to it, I say. The simple fact is that the changing nature of customer needs and desires makes any fixed specification effectively useless; the only way to really properly approach the problem is with an iterative approach. Not that Scrum is a silver bullet, of course; I've seen it misused and abused many, many times. But it beats waterfall.
Never crashing.
It seems like such a good idea, doesn't it? Users don't like programs that crash, so let's write programs that don't crash, and users should like the program, right? That's how I started out.
Nowadays, I'm more inclined to think that if it doesn't work, it shouldn't pretend it's working. Fail as soon as you can, with a good error message. If you don't, your program is going to crash even harder just a few instructions later, but with some nondescript null-pointer error that'll take you an hour to debug.
My favorite "don't crash" pattern is this:
public User readUserFromDb(int id){
User u = null;
try {
ResultSet rs = connection.execute("SELECT * FROM user WHERE id = " + id);
if (rs.moveNext()){
u = new User();
u.setFirstName(rs.get("fname"));
u.setSurname(rs.get("sname"));
// etc
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.info(e);
}
if (u == null){
u = new User();
u.setFirstName("error communicating with database");
u.setSurname("error communicating with database");
// etc
}
u.setId(id);
return u;
}
Now, instead of asking your users to copy/paste the error message and sending it to you, you'll have to dive into the logs trying to find the log entry. (And since they entered an invalid user ID, there'll be no log entry.)
I thought it made sense to apply design patterns whenever I recognised them.
Little did I know that I was actually copying styles from foreign programming languages, while the language I was working with allowed for far more elegant or easier solutions.
Using multiple (very) different languages opened my eyes and made me realise that I don't have to mis-apply other people's solutions to problems that aren't mine. Now I shudder when I see the factory pattern applied in a language like Ruby.
Obsessive testing. I used to be a rabid proponent of test-first development. For some projects it makes a lot of sense, but I've come to realize that it is not only unfeasible, but rather detrimental to many projects to slavishly adhere to a doctrine of writing unit tests for every single piece of functionality.
Really, slavishly adhering to anything can be detrimental.
This is a small thing, but: Caring about where the braces go (on the same line or next line?), suggested maximum line lengths of code, naming conventions for variables, and other elements of style. I've found that everyone seems to care more about this than I do, so I just go with the flow of whoever I'm working with nowadays.
Edit: The exception to this being, of course, when I'm the one who cares the most (or is the one in a position to set the style for a group). In that case, I do what I want!
(Note that this is not the same as having no consistent style. I think a consistent style in a codebase is very important for readability.)
Perhaps the most important "programming practice" I have since changed my mind about, is the idea that my code is better than everyone else's. This is common for programmers (especially newbies).
Utility libraries. I used to carry around an assembly with a variety of helper methods and classes with the theory that I could use them somewhere else someday.
In reality, I just created a huge namespace with a lot of poorly organized bits of functionality.
Now, I just leave them in the project I created them in. In all probability I'm not going to need it, and if I do, I can always refactor them into something reusable later. Sometimes I will flag them with a //TODO for possible extraction into a common assembly.
Designing more than I coded.
After a while, it turns into analysis paralysis.
The use of a DataSet to perform business logic. This binds the code too tightly to the database, also the DataSet is usually created from SQL which makes things even more fragile. If the SQL or the Database changes it tends to trickle to everything the DataSet touches.
Performing any business logic inside an object constructor. With inheritance and the ability to create overloaded constructors tend to make maintenance difficult.
Abbreviating variable/method/table/... Names
I used to do this all of the time, even when working in languages with no enforced limits on lengths of names (well they were probably 255 or something). One of the side-effects were a lot of comments littered throughout the code explaining the (non-standard) abbreviations. And of course, if the names were changed for any reason...
Now I much prefer to call things what they really are, with good descriptive names. including standard abbreviations only. No need to include useless comments, and the code is far more readable and understandable.
Wrapping existing Data Access components, like the Enterprise Library, with a custom layer of helper methods.
It doesn't make anybody's life easier
Its more code that can have bugs in it
A lot of people know how to use the EntLib data access components. No one but the local team knows how to use the in house data access solution
I first heard about object-oriented programming while reading about Smalltalk in 1984, but I didn't have access to an o-o language until I used the cfront C++ compiler in 1992. I finally got to use Smalltalk in 1995. I had eagerly anticipated o-o technology, and bought into the idea that it would save software development.
Now, I just see o-o as one technique that has some advantages, but it's just one tool in the toolbox. I do most of my work in Python, and I often write standalone functions that are not class members, and I often collect groups of data in tuples or lists where in the past I would have created a class. I still create classes when the data structure is complicated, or I need behavior associated with the data, but I tend to resist it.
I'm actually interested in doing some work in Clojure when I get the time, which doesn't provide o-o facilities, although it can use Java objects if I understand correctly. I'm not ready to say anything like o-o is dead, but personally I'm not the fan I used to be.
In C#, using _notation for private members. I now think it's ugly.
I then changed to this.notation for private members, but found I was inconsistent in using it, so I dropped that too.
I stopped going by the university recommended method of design before implementation. Working in a chaotic and complex system has forced me to change attitude.
Of course I still do code research, especially when I'm about to touch code I've never touched before, but normally I try to focus on as small implementations as possible to get something going first. This is the primary goal. Then gradually refine the logic and let the design just appear by itself. Programming is an iterative process and works very well with an agile approach and with lots of refactoring.
The code will not look at all what you first thought it would look like. Happens every time :)
I used to be big into design-by-contract. This meant putting a lot of error checking at the beginning of all my functions. Contracts are still important, from the perspective of separation of concerns, but rather than try to enforce what my code shouldn't do, I try to use unit tests to verify what it does do.
I would use static's in a lot of methods/classes as it was more concise. When I started writing tests that practice changed very quickly.
Checked Exceptions
An amazing idea on paper - defines the contract clearly, no room for mistake or forgetting to check for some exception condition. I was sold when I first heard about it.
Of course, it turned to be such a mess in practice. To the point of having libraries today like Spring JDBC, which has hiding legacy checked exceptions as one of its main features.
That anything worthwhile was only coded in one particular language. In my case I believed that C was the best language ever and I never had any reason to code anything in any other language... ever.
I have since come to appreciate many different languages and the benefits/functionality they offer. If I want to code something small - quickly - I would use Python. If I want to work on a large project I would code in C++ or C#. If I want to develop a brain tumour I would code in Perl.
When I needed to do some refactoring, I thought it was faster and cleaner to start straightaway and implement the new design, fixing up the connections until they work. Then I realized it's better to do a series of small refactorings to slowly but reliably progress towards the new design.
Perhaps the biggest thing that has changed in my coding practices, as well as in others, is the acceptance of outside classes and libraries downloaded from the internet as the basis for behaviors and functionality in applications. In school at the time I attended college we were encouraged to figure out how to make things better via our own code and rely upon the language to solve our problems. With the advances in all aspects of user interface and service/data consumption this is no longer a realistic notion.
There are certain things which will never change in a language, and having a library that wraps this code in a simpler transaction and in fewer lines of code that I have to write is a blessing. Connecting to a database will always be the same. Selecting an element within the DOM will not change. Sending an email via a server-side script will never change. Having to write this time and again wastes time that I could be using to improve my core logic in the application.
Initializing all class members.
I used to explicitly initialize every class member with something, usually NULL. I have come to realize that this:
normally means that every variable is initialized twice before ever being read
is silly because in most languages automatically initialize variables to NULL.
actually enforces a slight performance hit in most languages
can bloat code on larger projects
Like you, I also have embraced IoC patterns in reducing coupling between various components of my apps. It makes maintenance and parts-swapping much simpler, as long as I can keep each component as independent as possible. I'm also utilizing more object-relational frameworks such as NHibernate to simplify database management chores.
In a nutshell, I'm using "mini" frameworks to aid in building software more quickly and efficiently. These mini-frameworks save lots of time, and if done right can make an application super simple to maintain down the road. Plug 'n Play for the win!
A few years ago, we needed a C++ IPC library for making function calls over TCP. We chose one and used it in our application. After a while, it became clear it didn't provide all functionality we needed. In the next version of our software, we threw the third party IPC library out and replaced it by one we wrote ourselves. From then on, I sometimes doubt whether this was a good decision, because it has proven to be quite a lot of work and it obviously felt like reinventing the wheel. So my question is: are there disadvantages to code reuse that justify this reinvention?
I can suggest a few
The bugs get replicated - If you reuse a buggy code :)
Sometimes it may add an additional overhead. As an example if you just need to do a simple thing it is not advisable to use a complex BIG library that implements the required feature.
You might face with some licensing concerns.
You may need to spend some time to learn\configure the external library. This may not be effective if the re-development takes a much lower time.
Reusing a poorly documented library may get more time than expected/estimated
P.S. The reasons for writing our own library were:
Evaluating external libraries is often very difficult and it takes a lot of time. Also, some problems only become visible after a thorough evaluation.
It made it possible to introduce some features that are specific for our project.
It is easier to do maintenance and to write extensions, as you know the library through and through.
It's pretty much always case by case. You have to look at the suitability and quality of what you're trying to reuse.
The number one issue is: you can only successfully reuse code if that code is GOOD code. If it was designed poorly, has bugs, or is very fragile then you'll run into the same issues you already did run into -- you have to go do it yourself anyway because it's so hard to modify the existing code.
However, if it's a third-party library that you are considering using that you don't have the source code for, it's a little different. You can try and get the source if it's that kind of library. Some commercial library vendors are open to suggestions and feature requests.
The Golden Wisdom :: It Has To Be Usable Before It Can Be Reusable.
The biggest disadvantage (you mention it yourself) by reusing third party libraries, is that you are strongly coupled and dependent to how that library works and how it's supposed to be used, unless you manage to create a middle interface layer that can take care of it.
But it's hard to create a generic interface, since replacing an existing library with another one, more or less requires that the new functionality works in similar ways. However, you can always rewrite the code using it, but that might be very hard and take a long time.
Another aspect is that if you reinvent the wheel, you have complete control over what's happening and you can do modifications as you see fit. This can be completely impossible if you are depending on a third part library being alive and constantly providing you with updates and bug fixes. On the other hand, reusing code this way enables you to focus on other things in your software, which sometimes might be the thing to do.
There's always a trade off.
If your code relies on external resources and those go away, you may be crippling portions of many applications.
Since most reused code comes from the internet, you run into all the issues with the Bathroom Wall of Code Atwood talks about. You can run into issues with insecure or unreliable borrowed code, and the more black boxed it is, the worse.
Disadvantages of code reuse:
Debugging takes a whole lot longer since it's not your code and it's likely that it's somewhat bloated code.
Any specific requirements will also take more work since you are constrained by the code you're re-using and have to work around it's limitations.
Constant code reuse will result in the long run in a bloated and disorganized applications with hard to chase bugs - programming hell.
Re-using code can (dependently on the case) reduce the challenge and satisfaction factor for the programmer, and also waste an opportunity to develop new skills.
It depends on the case, the language and the code you want to re-use or re-write. In general I believe that the higher-level the language is, the more I tend towards code reuse. Bugs in higher-level language can have a bigger impact, and they're easier to rewrite. High level code must stay readable, neat and flexible. Of course that could be said of all code, but, somehow, rewriting a C library sounds less of a good idea than rewriting (or rather re-factoring) PHP model code.
So anyway, these are some of the arguments I'd use to promote "reinventing the wheel".
Sometimes it's just faster, more fun, and better in the long run to rewrite from scratch than having to work around bugs and limitation of a current codebase.
Wondering what you are using to keep this library you reinvented?
Initial time for create a reusable code is more expensive and time cost
When master branch has an update you need to sync it and deploy again
The bugs get replicated - If you reuse a buggy code
Reusing a poorly documented code may get more time than expected/estimated
What's the penetration of design patterns in the real world? Do you use them in your day to day job - discussing how and where to apply them with your coworkers - or do they remain more of an academic concept?
Do they actually provide actual value to your job? Or are they just something that people talk about to sound smart?
Note: For the purpose of this question ignore 'simple' design patterns like Singleton. I'm talking about designing your code so you can take advantage of Model View Controller, etc.
Any large program that is well written will use design patterns, even if they aren't named or recognized as such. That's what design patterns are, designs that repeatedly and naturally occur. If you're interfacing with an ugly API, you'll likely find yourself implementing a Facade to clean it up. If you've got messaging between components that you need to decouple, you may find yourself using Observer. If you've got several interchangeable algorithms, you might end up using Strategy.
It's worth knowing the design patterns because you're more likely to recognize them and then converge on a clean solution more quickly. However, even if you don't know them at all, you'll end up creating them eventually (if you are a decent programmer).
And of course, if you are using a modern language, you'll probably be forced to use them for some things, because they're baked into the standard libraries.
In my opinion, the question: "Do you use design pattern?", alone is a little flawed because the answer is universally YES.
Let me explain, we, programmers and designers, all use design patterns... we just don't always realise it. I know this sounds cliché, but you don't go to patterns, patterns come to you. You design stuff, it might look like an existing pattern, you name it that way so everyone understand what you are talking about and the rationale behind your design decision is stronger, knowing it has been discussed ad nauseum before.
I personally use patterns as a communication tool. That's it. They are not design solutions, they are not best practices, they are not tools in a toolbox.
Don't get me wrong, if you are a beginner, books on patterns will show you how a solution is best solved "using" their patterns rather than another flawed design. You will probably learn from the exercise. However, you have to realise that this doesn't mean that every situation needs a corresponding pattern to solve it. Every situation has a quirk here and there that will require you to think about alternatives and take a difficult decision with no perfect answer. That's design.
Anti-pattern however are on a totally different class. You actually want to actively avoid anti-patterns. That's why the name anti-pattern is so controversial.
To get back to your original question:
"Do I use design patterns?", Yes!
"Do I actively lean toward design patterns?", No.
Yes. Design patterns can be wonderful when used appropriately. As you mentioned, I am now using Model-View-Controller (MVC) for all of my web projects. It is a very common pattern in the web space which makes server-side code much cleaner and well-organized.
Beyond that, here are some other patterns that may be useful:
MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel): a similar pattern to MVC; used for WPF and Silverlight applications.
Composition: Great for when you need to use a hierarchy of objects.
Singleton: More elegant than using globals for storing items that truly need a single instance. As you mentioned, a simple pattern but it does have its uses.
It is worth noting a design pattern can also highlight a lack of language features and/or deficiencies in a language. For example, iterators are now built in as part of newer languages.
In general design patterns are quite useful but you should not use them everywhere; just where they are a good fit for your needs.
I try to, yes. They do indeed help maintainability and readability of your code. However, there are people who do abuse them, usually (from what I've seen) by forcing a system into a pattern that doesn't exist.
I try to use patterns if they are applicable. I think it's kind of sad seeing developers implement design patterns in code just for the sake of it. For the right task though, design patterns can be very useful and powerful.
There are many design patterns beyond the simple that are used in "real world". Good example Stackoverflow uses the Model View Controller Pattern. I have used Class Factories multiple times in projects for my employer, and I have seen many already written projects using them as well.
I am not saying every design pattern is being used but many are.
Yes we do, it usually happens when we start designing something and then someone notices that it resembles an existing pattern. We then take a look at it and see how it would help us achieve our goal.
We also use patterns that are not documented but that emerge from designing a lot.
Mind you, we don't use them a lot.
Yes, Factory, Chain of Responsibility, Command, Proxy, Visitor, and Observer, among others, are in use in a codebase I work with daily. As far as MVC goes, this site seems to use it quite well, and the devs couldn't say enough good things in the latest podcast.
Yes, I use a lot of well known design patterns, but I also end up building some software that I later find out uses a 'named' design pattern. Most elegant, reusable designs could be called a 'pattern'. It's a lot like dance moves. We all know the waltz, and the 2-step, but not everyone has a name for the 'bump and scoot' although most of us do it.
MVC is very well known so yes we use design patterns quite a lot. Now if your asking about the Gang of Four patterns, there are several that I use because other maintainers will know the design and what we are working towards in the code. There are several though that remain fairly obscure for what we do, so if I use one I don't get the full benefits of using a pattern.
Are they important, yes because it gives you a method of talking about software design in a quick efficient and generally accepted way. Can you do better custom solutions, well yes (sorta)?
The original GoF patterns were pulled from production code, so they catalogued what was already being used in the wild. They aren't purely or even mostly an academic thing.
I find the MVC pattern really useful to isolate your model logic, which can than be reused or worked on without too much trouble. It also helps de-coupling your classes and makes unit testing easier. I wrote about it recently (yes, shameless plug here...)
Also, I've recently used a factory pattern from a base class to generate and return the proper DataContext class that I needed on the fly, using LINQ.
Bridges are used when trying when trying to glue together two different technologies (like Cocoa and Ruby on the Mac, for example)
I find, however, that whenever I implement a pattern, it's because I knew about it before hand. Some extra thought generally goes into it as I find I must modify the original pattern slightly to accommodate my needs.
You just need to be careful not to become and architecture astronaut!
Yes, design patterns are largely used in the real world - and daily by many of the people I work with.
In my opinion the biggest value provided by design patterns is that they provide a universal, high level language for you to convey software design to other programmers.
For instance instead of describing your new class as a "utility that creates one of several other classes based on some combination of input criteria", you can simply say it's an "abstract factory" and everyone instantly understands what you're talking about.
Yes, design patterns or abstractly patterns are part of my life, where I look, I begin to see them. Therefore, I am surrounded by them. But, as you know, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Therefore, I strongly recommend you to read GoF book.
One of the main problems about design patterns, most developers just do not get the idea, or do not believe in them. And most of the time they argue about the variables, loops, or switches. But, I strongly believe that if you do not speak the pattern language, your software will not go far and you will find yourselves in a maintenance nightmare.
As you know, anti-pattern is also dangerous thing and it happens when you have little expertise on design patterns. And refactoring anti-patterns is much more harder. As a recommended book about this problem please read "AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis".
Yes.
We are even using them in my current job: Mainframe coding with COBOL and PL/I.
So far I have seen Adaptor, Visitor, Facade, Module, Observer and something very close to Composite and Iterator. Due to the nature of the languages it's mostly strutural patterns that are used. Also, I'm not always sure that the people who use them do so conciously :D
I absolutely use design patterns. At this point I take MVC for granted as a design pattern. My primary reason for using them is that I am humble enough to know that I am likely not the first person to encounter a particular problem. I rarely start a piece of code knowing which pattern I am going to use; I constantly watch the code to see if it naturally develops into an existing pattern.
I am also very fond of Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. When a problem or task presents itself, I flip to related section (it's mostly a reference book) and read a few overviews of the patterns. Once I have a better idea of the general problem and the existing solutions, I begin to see the long term path my code will likely take via the experience of others. I end up making much better decisions.
Design patterns definitely play a big role in all of my "for the future" ideas.