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 | structural |
| Summary | Separate an abstraction from its implementation so the two can vary independently. | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | — |
| Intent | Decouple abstractions from implementations so they can evolve independently. | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | When an abstraction is tightly coupled to its implementation, changing one side forces changes in the other and makes the system harder to evolve. | A system needs to add optional behaviors to an object without creating many subclasses for every feature combination. | A client needs to interact with an object indirectly because the real object may be expensive, sensitive, or remote. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Bridge is useful when you want one stable abstraction while swapping implementations for providers, environments, or device targets. | 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. | Proxy is useful for lazy loading, access control, caching, logging, and remote service wrappers. |