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 | Convert the interface of a class or module into another interface clients expect. | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | — |
| Intent | Allow incompatible interfaces to work together without changing the consuming code. | Wrap an object with other objects that implement the same contract so responsibilities can be layered dynamically. | Separate an algorithm from the object structure it operates on by moving behavior into visitor objects. |
| Decision factors | |||
| Problem | A client needs to talk to a legacy class or external service whose interface does not match the rest of the codebase. | A system needs to add optional behaviors to an object without creating many subclasses for every feature combination. | You need to perform operations across a set of different object types without stuffing all the logic into the objects themselves. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Adapters are useful when exposing a stable boundary over a legacy API, vendor SDK, or payload format mismatch. | 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. | Visitor is useful for AST processing, reporting, cart calculations, and exporting object structures to alternate formats. |