When exposing beginners to design patterns, it's important to tell them specific patterns are language-dependent. Many have more idiomatic solutions in some languages, or solve problems some languages don't have (or refuse to acknowledge as problems worth solving).
It's easy to hear about a pattern as "here is a good way to code" and try to use it everywhere. But a pattern has 2 parts: problem & solution, and one has to understand the problem first.
I think the specific patterns in the GoF book were Java-centric (?), although their deeper legacy was to show an organized way to talk about patterns.
When exposing beginners to design patterns, it's important to tell them specific patterns are language-dependent. Many have more idiomatic solutions in some languages, or solve problems some languages don't have (or refuse to acknowledge as problems worth solving).
It's easy to hear about a pattern as "here is a good way to code" and try to use it everywhere. But a pattern has 2 parts: problem & solution, and one has to understand the problem first.
I think the specific patterns in the GoF book were Java-centric (?), although their deeper legacy was to show an organized way to talk about patterns.
As you asked, the GoF book was written before Java so no.