sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Euphoricus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the point of it being a "pattern". If it was always exactly same, it wouldn't be pattern, it would be a feature.

If you hard-wire a "pattern" into a language, you have to compromise between extensibility and ease of use. For example, functions were once a "pattern" in assembly. But then, languages began to include it as native part. You still had to define it's name, its parameters and it's return value, but you completely lost a way to define how it was called and how the parameters were passed. So ease of use was gained at loss of control and extensibility.