unknown wrote:
> 
>> or do a google search for 'simpleton design pattern' for many others.
> This seems to be some kind of play on words.  "Simpleton" is not an
> appropriate serious word for a language feature.
> 

Yea, I agree there is some word playing going on (it may be kinda like 
releasing a virus into the wild).  Some of what the search turned up was 
making fun of the singleton pattern by calling it simpleton (and the 
rest could have been accidental misuses).  However, I could have sworn 
that I saw this word used in a more legitimate place (such as a lecture 
or textbook).  If I run across a more authoritative source, I'll share 
it.

Nevertheless, I have to disagree with your 'serious' requirement for 
words for language features in general and, in particular, concerning 
simpleton.  Take for instance, 'duck typing'.  And, I see nothing wrong 
with simpleton either, if there were an actual language construct which 
fit the word; although, I admit, it might not fit for 'singleton' as 
much as I initially thought.

However, if you expand your search, you can find people refering to code 
modules as simpletons, based on the fact that they have a limited, 
simple set of functionality (check out this page for instance):

http://www.roxie.org/knownspace/api_design.html

and it does seem to fit their architecture.

--J

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.