Analysis
Compare patterns
Evaluate design patterns side by side across intent, tradeoffs, languages, and integration fit.
Choose patterns
Select up to 3 patterns
Current selection
3 of 3 selected
You can now review the differences across the comparison table below.
Analysis
Pattern comparison
Reviewing 3 patterns.
| Criteria | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Basics | |||
| Category | structural | structural | behavioral |
| Summary | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | — | — |
| Intent | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | Use sharing to support large numbers of fine-grained objects efficiently by separating shared intrinsic state from per-object extrinsic state. | Allow an object to alter its behavior when its internal state changes by delegating state-specific behavior to separate state objects. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | A system needs to add optional behaviors to an object without creating many subclasses for every feature combination. | A system creates a large number of similar objects, but storing all of their state separately uses too much memory. | An object behaves differently depending on its internal state, and conditional logic is becoming hard to manage. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Decorators work well for cross-cutting concerns such as logging, retry, caching, compression, and telemetry because each layer keeps the same interface while adding one concern. | Flyweight is useful when thousands or millions of similar objects need to be represented efficiently, such as trees, glyphs, tiles, or UI tokens. | State is useful for workflows, media players, order lifecycles, and any domain where behavior changes as the object moves through a lifecycle. |