I saw, here on Programmers, the answer to this question: How does thinking on design patterns and OOP practices change in dynamic and weakly-typed languages? There I found a link to an article with an outspoken title: Are Design Patterns Missing Language Features. But where I found snippets that to me seemed very catchy and that can be probably verified against experience given there is an incentive for that , like:
PaulGraham said "Peter Norvig found that 16 of the 23 patterns in Design Patterns were 'invisible or simpler' in Lisp."
Of course, nobody ever speaks of the "function" pattern, or the "class" pattern, or numerous other things that we take for granted because most languages provide them as built-in features. OTOH, programmers in a purely PrototypeOrientedLanguage? might well find it convenient to simulate classes with prototypes...
I am also taking into consideration that design patterns are a communcation tool. Because even with my limited experience participating in building applications I can see as an anti-pattern(ineffective and/or counterproductive) for example, forcing a small PHP team to learn GoF patterns for small to medium intranet App. I am aware that scale, scope and purpose can determine what is effective and/or productive, but still I didn't managed to find an technical overview about that.
I saw small commercial applications that mixed functional with OOP and still be maintainable, and I don't know if many would need for example in python to write a singleton , but for me a simple module does the same thing.