So it begins with the punch that the last few chapters have been building up to:
Alexander’s story does not end with the publication of A Pattern Language in 1977. It went on and still goes on. And Alexander did not sit still after he wrote the patterns. Like any scientist he tried them out.
And they did not work.
The reason, quoted by Gabriel is that other processes other than architecture play a more fundamental role. That a building is not just the process of slapping together a bunch of very well thought out patterns based on emperical evidence. It's the result of many other processes like finance, zoning, construction, etc.
...one problem with the building process is lump-sum development. In such development few resources are brought to bear on the problems of repair and piecemeal growth. Instead, a large sum of money is dedicated to building a large artifact, and that artifact is allowed to deteriorate somewhat, and anything that is found lacking in the design or construction is ignored or minimally addressed until it is feasible to abandon the building and construct a replacement.
Gabriel gives an example from a previous chapter about how these processes can destroy the otherwise good qualities of development. For example, the process of getting a mortgage and paying it off directly influences the types of buildings built and used. Generally, you invest a large amount of money in a property, so large, that you usually can't afford to make piecemeal modifications because you can barely afford paying it off. This is okay as long as people are jumping from house to house. This avoids fixing up the problems there maybe with these houses until things get really bad and they are knocked down and rebuilt. Perhaps losing what was wrong with them in the first place.
So if you retain these old processes you still get the old results. Now it's clear in software that this is also the case - a nicely architected and controlled software project does not necessarily lead to high quality software. How often have you worked on a software project that you knew was going to be re-written in a few years anyway?
Gabriel suggest that the answer lies in good code and coders not in the typical separation of analysis, design and implementation:
And isn’t the old-style software methodology to put design in the hands of analysts and designers and to put coding in the hands of lowly coders, sometimes offshore coders who can be paid the lowest wages to do the least important work?
Methodologists who insist on separating analysis and design from coding are missing the essential feature of design: The design is in the code, not in a document or in a diagram. Half a programmer’s time is spent exploring the code, not in typing it in or changing it. When you look at the code you see its design, and that’s most of what you’re looking at, and it’s mostly while coding that you’re designing.
And finally, that the typical software patterns are not following Christopher Alexander's original concept of a pattern language:
When I look at software patterns and pattern languages, I don’t see the quality without a name in them, either. Recall that Alexander said that both the patterns themselves and the pattern language have the quality. In many cases today the pattern languages are written quickly, sort of like students doing homework problems. I heard one neophyte pattern writer say that when writing patterns he just writes what he knows and can write four or five patterns at a sitting.
The answer is to build software piecemeal, incrementally, partially designed and reflecting - much more like a Turkish rug and that's the next chapter, "The Bead Game, Rugs, and Beauty".