An author comments, somewhat belatedly

Normally, responding to a review is a waste of an author's time. However, the way reviews are organized here (chronologically) makes the last review the most important. So I am responding to Edward Nq's "review". He clearly has not read the important parts of my book, which explain the context and history of patterns and why they can work (and also fail) as a way of understanding the UML. I clearly establish why I don't address "Design Patterns" and why, for example, I use a pattern form which is the other accepted form in the pattern community. My book is NOT about Design Patterns, except to the extent they're one form of pattern found in the IT world. Rather the book is about patterns as a literary exercise, one of the fundamental starting points for patterns, and how to read them regardless of format. Anyone wanting a rehash of the excellent material in the original Design Patterns book has any number of books and articles available. My intention was to put patterns into a context, something which seems to have escaped Mr Ng altogether. I suspect he skimmed the patterns themselves and avoided the hard work the other reviewers comment on - reviewers who sadly preceded him and so must be read after him. Given the lack of graciousness in his review, I would also suggest, based on it, that he lacks the basic literacy needed to critique the book. The book is still selling, after too many years. I would suggest potential readers looking for an idea of what it is about should consult all the reader reviews before making a judgement.

Other Reviews

• An author comments, somewhat belatedly
• One of the worst book
• Shoemaker's Son
• One of the 5 best computer science books I have ever read.
• Hard material