I agree. His understanding of how you might apply these patterns in C++ seems substandard, at best. Doesn't he know about std::<container_type>::iterator? He didn't even seem to know about templates at all.
But that's just the technical stuff that he rapidly dismissed in his update/addendum. Fine. I still think he doesn't get it. I think he's right that patterns are largely about vocabulary, but he's wrong to say that the GoF book (or patterns in general) turn people into macro processor systems. I have yet to read the GoF book, but my basic understanding of patterns is that it indeed creates vocabulary - which gives you abstractions with which to glue your thoughts together so you can have new thoughts. That's what vocabulary does. That's exactly how I think of design patterns in software.
You're doing it wrong. You criticize a criticism after you've read the topic of the criticism, not before. Subtle difference, I know, but worth keeping in mind.
Doesn't mean I haven't read about patterns, or pieces of the GoF book (which I have; and I'm reading the book itself right now). That would be like saying you can't credibly talk about graphics unless you've read the white book: it simply isn't so.
But that's just the technical stuff that he rapidly dismissed in his update/addendum. Fine. I still think he doesn't get it. I think he's right that patterns are largely about vocabulary, but he's wrong to say that the GoF book (or patterns in general) turn people into macro processor systems. I have yet to read the GoF book, but my basic understanding of patterns is that it indeed creates vocabulary - which gives you abstractions with which to glue your thoughts together so you can have new thoughts. That's what vocabulary does. That's exactly how I think of design patterns in software.