>>[dueling URL's snipped]
>>
>>thanks bob. I have to admit, after looking at the Patterns overview site, the level of abstraction is kind of overwhelming. I'm pretty sure simple classes and objects will keep my meager noggin more than challenged for awhile!
>
>Actually... the idea of patterns is to SIMPLIFY Object Oriented programming not complicate it. Patterns are not complicated, they are just common methodologies used to solve a certain problem. As a matter of fact, there are probably several implementations of the various patterns also.

There's another side to the pattern theory. It reminds me of pedagogy - all I've ever heard it in was "the classifications of methods". The same few things that teachers do were re-classified over and over (or I had a wrong professor).

Most of the pattern theory seems to me like an attempt to classify what programmers were already doing. If I may be allowed to repeat the sentence: "we've been doing it for years, and now they come and tell us it's called sex".

Paradoxical as it may seem when you look at it this way, this theory still may help novice programmers to understand what they're trying to do, and may save lots of hot water from being reinvented. There's only one thing to avoid: thinking too much before the taking a step. It may lead into an analysis/paralysis - if what you're doing feels right, do it even if it's against the known design patterns. You may just be setting a new one.