<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>OOP on Briar Patch</title>
    <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/tags/oop/</link>
    <description>Recent content in OOP on Briar Patch</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 23:46:51 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://briar-patch.neocities.org/tags/oop/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The Death of Design Patterns</title>
      <link>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/death_design_patterns/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 23:46:51 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://briar-patch.neocities.org/posts/death_design_patterns/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every now and then, I see &lt;em&gt;Design Patterns&lt;/em&gt; floated as a kind of next-step resource for&#xA;programmers after they&amp;rsquo;ve gotten comfortable with a language, typically an object-oriented&#xA;(or at least object-aware) one. I don&amp;rsquo;t particularly have a problem with OOP as a concept,&#xA;though I agree with its critics that inheritance is overused in teaching materials by several&#xA;orders of magnitude.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;But as for &lt;em&gt;Design Patterns&lt;/em&gt; itself, I personally think these days that it only serves as a window into&#xA;90s programming philosophy - a historical relic of a bygone age, and one that I&amp;rsquo;m not all&#xA;that interested in revisiting (unlike my passion for &lt;em&gt;Software Tools&lt;/em&gt; from the 70s).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
