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 | creational | behavioral |
| Summary | — | — | — |
| Intent | Provide a surrogate or placeholder for another object to control access to it. | Ensure a class has only one instance and provide a global access point to it. | 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 interact with an object indirectly because the real object may be expensive, sensitive, or remote. | A system needs exactly one shared instance of a class, and that instance must be globally accessible without allowing uncontrolled duplication. | A system needs to switch between interchangeable behaviors without hardcoding branching logic everywhere. |
| Tradeoffs |
|
|
|
| Practical fit | |||
| Languages |
|
|
|
| Platforms |
|
|
|
| Integration notes | Proxy is useful for lazy loading, access control, caching, logging, and remote service wrappers. | Singleton is useful for centralized services like configuration, logging, caching, and shared application state. | Strategies can cross codebases through shared contracts, API selection rules, or runtime configuration. |