Monks,

In a moment of honest self-reflection, I realized that most of the software I've worked on over my past year and a half of employment fits the Big Ball of Mud pattern. Much of my code started off as either a throwaway or a prototype, which I never quite had the time to rewrite later. Some of it (the minority, I think) is a maintenance minefield.

That said, some of it's fairly good, well-documented, loosely coupled, easy to maintain code.

Should I be concerned that my code doesn't fit the Gang of Four's vision of architectural sophistication? Are design patterns all they're reported to be, or even close? None of these programs are is longer than two thousand lines: relatively small potatoes compared to some of the systems we use. Is their scale too small for pattern-based design to make an appreciable difference?

Am I admitting that I have a problem, or just being paranoid? What experiences have you had?

--
F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
Found a typo in this node? /msg me
The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!