My last two posts have been rather critical of the Visitor Pattern as described in "Design Patterns" more commonly known as GoF (Gang of Four). So the question is reasonably asked, do I consider the other patterns similarly flawed? If anyone is interested in the answer, it's yes. In fact rather than being subtitled "Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software", it should have been "21 reasons C++ sucks; 1 embarassment; and an Abstract Syntax Tree".
First the embarassment: Singleton.
This is a global variable. It should be treated in your design as a global variable; a useful hack sometimes, but always undesirable. Singleton is more honestly described as "Abusing your languages class system to provide namespacing for global variables". Just say no.
Regarding the 21 other patterns, let me just add that most of them apply to Java equally to C++, but Java simply wasn't a serious contender when the book was written; and of course the examples are mostly C++ (all of them except a few in smalltalk). Ponder this question: Why isn't 'Constructor' a creational pattern? Then ask yourself, why are the OO-community the only programming community to name the Factory Method, or Command patterns? The answers are simple, but the ramifications profound.
In a language with first-class constructors, the Factory Method Pattern consists of
factory = MyClass.constructorIn a language with closures the Command Pattern consists of
menuItem.clicked = lambda : ...do stuff...In a langauge with constructors, the Constructor Pattern consists of
obj = new MyClass()
The final pattern is the OO version of the fundamental 'design pattern', elsewhere known as 'language'. The Interpreter Pattern was first applied, in it's non-OO form, during the 1950's, most famously in the development of symbolic assembly language, FORTRAN and Lisp. Since then it has found wide application being used in such diverse domains as database-querying, and printf format strings. The pattern is simultaneously both the most signifigant, cross-language, powerful pattern in Computer Science, and the biggest 'DUH' in the GoF's book. Of course, as with Visitor, the pattern in GoF is a near perfect example of the results of trying to shoehorn a non-OO problem into an OO-design; however I'll leave analysis of that for another time.
So if the book is predominately a catalogue of unfortunately necessary kludges around the semantic weaknesses of mainstream OO-languages, why do I still highly recommend it to new programmers?
Well for starters, precisely because it is a catalogue of necessary kludges. The book does capture (with the exception of Singleton) good work arounds for the weaknesses a programmer is going to face when working with C++/Java/C# (and to a lesser extent Python/Ruby/Smalltalk/etc). We all find ourselves needing to work in these languages from time to time, and it is well worth knowing cleaner kludges.
Secondly, along with "Refactoring" by Martin Fowler, GoF provides the reader with a solid introduction to good OO design. Combined, these two books will guide the new programmer into a solid understanding of classic object orientation. Given OO is the dominant paradigm behind all the current mainstream languages (unless you consider VB mainstream), this is worthwhile. That there are far better, cleaner, and safer alternative designs available outside the mainstream is beside the point when a new programmer is going to face Java or C# (or heaven forbid C++). Where a skilled programmer will translate these alternatives into a clean non-OO implementation within a mainstream language (see previous discussion regarding Visitor pattern and parser generators); this is simply not a reasonable expectation of a new programmer who is still mastering their first or second language.
Read them, learn them, even use them. Still you should always remember, these are kludges, and there are generally better alternatives available - the proof of you skill as a programmer is you understanding of what they are.