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 | behavioral | behavioral |
| Summary | Convert the interface of a class or module into another interface clients expect. | — | — |
| Intent | Allow incompatible interfaces to work together without changing the consuming code. | Define an object that encapsulates communication between a set of objects, keeping them from referring to each other directly. | Encapsulate a family of algorithms or behaviors behind a common contract so they can be selected and swapped cleanly. |
| 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. | Multiple objects need to coordinate behavior, but direct references between them create tight coupling and complex dependencies. | A system needs to switch between interchangeable behaviors without hardcoding branching logic everywhere. |
| 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. | Mediator is useful for chat systems, form coordination, workflow orchestration, and any domain where many components must collaborate without knowing about each other. | Strategies can cross codebases through shared contracts, API selection rules, or runtime configuration. |