Every design pattern is supposed to solve a particular kind of problem. So unless the list contains duplicates, I don't think it is too much.
On the other hand, 100 patterns are maybe too much to keep in mind. Further, for each pattern you have to spend time to understand it. Maybe also to memorize and practice.
Is this evidence of the expressiveness of Java? Or is it a failure on the part of the language that this many distinct use cases need to be explicitly mapped out?
It don't think that the high number of design pattern implemented with Java has something to do with the expressiveness of its syntax. Rather the business domains in which it is being used.
Some people claim that Kotlin solves a number of problems of the Java syntax. Still the underlying patterns are present, just with a more elegant syntax.
On the other hand a certain set of pattern depends on particular languages feature. E.g. the Converter pattern makes only sense if you have a type system. So while there is probably a subset, I'd expect a different set of commonly used pattern for other programming languages, say JavaScript or Erlang.
Is this too much templated code?
Only if people apply design pattern indiscriminately. Also one person's design pattern may be another person's anti-pattern. So I guess this question can't be answered.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Every design pattern is supposed to solve a particular kind of problem. So unless the list contains duplicates, I don't think it is too much.
On the other hand, 100 patterns are maybe too much to keep in mind. Further, for each pattern you have to spend time to understand it. Maybe also to memorize and practice.
It don't think that the high number of design pattern implemented with Java has something to do with the expressiveness of its syntax. Rather the business domains in which it is being used.
Some people claim that Kotlin solves a number of problems of the Java syntax. Still the underlying patterns are present, just with a more elegant syntax.
On the other hand a certain set of pattern depends on particular languages feature. E.g. the Converter pattern makes only sense if you have a type system. So while there is probably a subset, I'd expect a different set of commonly used pattern for other programming languages, say JavaScript or Erlang.
Only if people apply design pattern indiscriminately. Also one person's design pattern may be another person's anti-pattern. So I guess this question can't be answered.