---
title: "Comment by Romain Rochegude on \"Are design patterns still relevant?\" | Hashnode"
description: "Hi, I like your article very much! I'm just more mitigated about naming: I see tons of developers using a lot of terms like "strategy", "fact"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/are-design-patterns-still-relevant/5feb60d2017ebb59232d9e42/comment/5fecfa6fb2cf2458fe3251ac"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/are-design-patterns-still-relevant/5feb60d2017ebb59232d9e42)

Comment [Are design patterns still relevant?](https://hashnode.com/posts/are-design-patterns-still-relevant/5feb60d2017ebb59232d9e42)

[Romain Rochegude](https://hashnode.com/@RomainRochegude)

[Dec 30, 2020](https://hashnode.com/posts/are-design-patterns-still-relevant/5feb60d2017ebb59232d9e42/comment/5fecfa6fb2cf2458fe3251ac)

Hi, I like your article very much!

I'm just more mitigated about naming: I see tons of developers using a lot of terms like "strategy", "factory", "facade", etc. But we should focus on expressive naming in the domain context and these suffixes should disappear. After all, they are simply patterns...

[Mario Cervera](https://hashnode.com/@macerub)

[Dec 30, 2020](https://hashnode.com/posts/are-design-patterns-still-relevant/5feb60d2017ebb59232d9e42/comment/5fecfa6fb2cf2458fe3251ac#reply-5fed0192b2cf2458fe3251f7)

Thanks Romain! 🙏

What you say about naming is true, but I am not saying that pattern names should appear in the code, and I am not talking about patterns from the GoF book only.

Pattern names are important during design discussions. For example, "dependency injection" is a pattern. Imagine that, during a design discussion, you have to explain to somebody else how to solve a problem applying dependency injection, but you cannot use this term. It would take much longer, wouldn't it?

That's the point about pattern names. They allow you to convey more information with less words.