A comparison is made between art and science - art is creation, science is description - and that there are few activities that combine both. The exceptions given are computer science and architecture (I'd suggest maybe biological science is another). Trying to avoid the separation of construction and design is a mistake in computer science. Much or almost all of computer science is design and that it is expensive because it does combine both aspects for example, "What is Software Design?".
So this is specifically what all the discussion was a few years ago about TDD - being Test Driven Design (not Development). And the focus on behaviour rather than testing, for example Tom's recent Instinct project.
I want to set the stage for the accepted view of how architecture is done, at least in the pre-Alexander world. Architects are hired to solve the problem of how to construct a building or buildings that meet certain constraints as specified by the future inhabitants or people in a position to specify what those inhabitants will need. The architect generally interviews those future inhabitants, studies the site, refers to the local building code, observes neighboring buildings, considers the building materials and construction protocols in the area, and then is inspired, in the manner of all artists, to create a set of drawings which a general contractor, in occasional conference with the architect, reduces to a physical object.
Following from the suggestion given in the book, that the inhabitants are the programmers, it's obvious that "software architects" should ask the inhabitants of the software the best way to solve their problems. But that's not enough, more often than not they dictate solutions without knowledge of any of the complexity that their "solutions" might bring. This aligns with Alexander's suggestion for architects.
The first of Alexander’s contributions to architecture was to reject the separate architect and builder model and to posit user-centered design—in which users (inhabitants) design their own buildings—and the architect-builder who would blend the activities of design and construction. This was viewed by architects as high treason enough, let alone the curious quest for an elusive quality that Alexander cannot name.
The mechanism he proposed to accomplish his new model was the pattern language. A pattern language is a set of patterns used by a process to generate artifacts. These artifacts can be considered complexes of patterns. Each pattern is a kind of rule that states a problem to be solved and a solution to that problem.
I recently started to read a copy of "A Pattern Language" and I was struck by the same thing that Gabriel was, especially in comparison with the GoF book:
One thing that strikes many readers of the pattern language is the degree to which Alexander talks about people and their activities in the patterns — the patterns are a response to his arguments about how life is best lived. Because of this, many regard "A Pattern Language" as a manual of how to live and how physical surroundings can support and enhance living.
The patterns discussed in Alexander's book are all about what makes an area good for people - side walks (foot paths), water features, stairs, the height of crossings, making a city accessible to bicycle and foot traffic, etc - all these things make the environment livable and most ideas are supported by empirical evidence. The world of software patterns, by comparison, seems much more barren and arbitrary.
So there are some obviously good things about patterns:
Patterns seem to be a partial solution to the over abstraction problem I talked about in “Abstraction Descant.” They are a way to take advantage of common patterns without building costly, confusing, and unnecessary abstractions when the goal is merely to write something understandable. That is, when there are more idioms to use, using them is far better than inventing a new vocabulary.
Patterns in software are a good idea, but I have rarely seen the attention to the human side—to living within software—that I see in Alexander’s patterns. One architect commented on Alexander that he regarded the patterns as providing information, sort of heuristics, about architecture, and I have to admit the patterns I’ve seen about software do that—they provide information that the software practitioner just plain ought to know.
But this also highlights one of the problems with patterns. They discuss the context of the solution to a problem without first defining and more closely examining the problem itself, especially in a more general way. While it's often discussed in this chapter that patterns interact with other patterns and that they must be free of "systematic variations" the problems themselves don't seem to require this property. When people are critical of patterns, this is what I think they are objecting to, rather than the patterns themselves. He quotes Alexander saying: "You see that the patterns are very much alive and evolving."
And in a foreshadowing of what's to come:
The worst thing is this: Alexander had the chance in the 1970s to try out his pattern language. He observed the results of others trying it out and he even tried it out himself several times. And guess what: It didn’t work.
The next chapter, "The Failure of Pattern Languages", discusses the failure to apply these pattern but also a proposed solution to the problem: that the process should also have "the quality without a name".