I always tell people who obsess over design patterns as clean code and good coding practices to remember that design patterns often indicate a lack of language features.
For example, are you using a Builder? Would you use the Builder pattern if the language had named variables in arguments?
My favorite reference on the topic is Peter Norvig's "Design Patterns in Dynamic Languages" (1996!) https://www.norvig.com/design-patterns/
I suppose any feature you need is a design pattern, and everything from functions onup are whys of implementing features your language doesn't natively support.
> The common defect in the critiques [2], [6], and [14] is that, instead of engaging with the original quaternionic 3-sphere model presented in my papers [1], [7]– [11] using Geometric Algebra, they insist on criticizing entirely unrelated flat space models based on matrices and vector “algebra.” This logical fallacy by itself renders the critiques invalid. Nevertheless, in this paper I have addressed every claim made in the critique [6] and the critiques it relies on, and demonstrated, point by point, that none of the claims made in the critiques are correct. I have demonstrated that the claims made in the critique [6] are neither proven nor justified. In particular, I have demonstrated that, contrary to its claims, critique [6] has not found any mistakes in my paper [7], or in my other related papers, either in the analytical model for the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulations. Moreover, I have brought out a large number of mistakes and incorrect statements from the critique [6] and the critiques it relies on. Some of these mistakes are surprisingly elementary.