Błażej Kosmowski
Jan 29 · 1 min read

I really don’t get this reasoning. Pattern is a pattern. Regardless of how I name a class it still realises this pattern. Name of the class may help in identifying this pattern. Suffixing a class name with Decorator indicates this class should act as decorator — objects of this class should decorate other objects. Decorator is far from anything I can call “procedure”. By “procedure” I understand a “ series of computational steps to be carried out” (wikipedia quote). Most of the patterns and techniques I am aware of is far from being strictly procedural — maybe service objects are, but this is how I understand reasoning behind them — aggregates of steps.

This naming and those patterns are out there for long years and I have never noticed any confusion here :/

This is obviously just an opinion :)

    Błażej Kosmowski

    Written by

    RubyOnRails craftsman @ selleo.com