If it were as simple as you seem to think, Alexander would not have needed to write a book about it. He would just have printed up a list of 253 patterns and left it at that. The book is there to explain the patterns.

Naturally he has to explain the patterns, paritcularly since he was talking about using them with non-architects. It is my impression though that he didn't invent the patterns, he extracted architectual concepts and built a language that lets people talk about the concepts themselves. Having done that he can talk about how to mix and match patterns.

My point was that in computer science we have not even come close to pinning down the concepts that a language should be built around. We are still in the phase of extracting the concepts and putting lables on them. Until that is done to resonable level we can't talk much about higher level pattern usage.

My real point is that many of these so-called 'patterns'---and the problems that they are intended to solve---actually result from defects in the source language.

For the most part I agree with you here. I think some of the language specific patterns are not flaws though, just reflections of the differences between languages.

You need to remember that the slides were not designed for consumption on the web; they were intended to accompany a five-minute talk that was given once. You are no doubt familiar with the idea that communications that might be polite or humorous in person become offensive or comfrontational in email. I think the same thing is happening here.

I'm sorry, your right. Going back and looking again I can that a lot of what I saw as obnoxious might not have been taken as such by a friendly audience.

Jay