Cheat sheet for all design patterns implemented in Ruby?

Question

I wonder if there are cheat cheets for all design patterns implemented in Ruby so that you don\'t have to reinvent the wheel.

Answer 1

This document has nice examples of actual implementation of some of the design patterns from the GoF.

It may be a "cheatsheet", but I don't think is a silver-bullet reference for design patterns because they emerge once you have analyzed a problem, and the pattern fits the solution you're giving. Is not a recipe, but rather a good reference.

And, of course, is the great book Design patterns in Ruby

Answer 2

Design patterns are useful for organizing massive amounts of code. since you don't need to write as much code to do things in ruby as you do in #{verbose_algol_derivitive_language}, they don't have the same degree of importance.

What you will see used all the time is strategy and builder implemented with blocks (an example of builder would be form_for blocks in rails views, an example of strategy would be File.open) I can't really think of the last time I saw any others (gof patterns anyways)

EDIT: responding to

You mean with ruby we don't have to think about design patterns in most cases? Another question, if I'm using Rails, do I actually have to think about design patterns? Cause I don't know where to use them. They don't seem to fit in any component of the MVC. Are design patterns only for people that are building massive libraries/frameworks eg. Rails, DataMapper, MongoID etc and not for others that only using these frameworks/libraries?

For the most part, rails makes a lot of your decisions for you, and will until your app hits a fairly high level of complexity. Even if you are using something like sinatra though (which doesn't decide anything for you), you still won't really need to reach for those GoF patterns the same way as you would in a language like (for example) java.

This is because the whole point of design patterns is bottled ways to keep things flexible and maintainable. If that is built into the language, often they aren't even needed.

For example, a strategy pattern implemented in java looks sort of like this

//StrategyExample test application

class StrategyExample {

    public static void main(String[] args) {

        Context context;

        // Three contexts following different strategies
        context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyAdd());
        int resultA = context.executeStrategy(3,4);

        context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategySubtract());
        int resultB = context.executeStrategy(3,4);

        context = new Context(new ConcreteStrategyMultiply());
        int resultC = context.executeStrategy(3,4);

    }

}

// The classes that implement a concrete strategy should implement this

// The context class uses this to call the concrete strategy
interface Strategy {

    int execute(int a, int b);

}

// Implements the algorithm using the strategy interface
class ConcreteStrategyAdd implements Strategy {

    public int execute(int a, int b) {
        System.out.println("Called ConcreteStrategyAdd's execute()");
        return a + b;  // Do an addition with a and b
    }

}

class ConcreteStrategySubtract implements Strategy {

    public int execute(int a, int b) {
        System.out.println("Called ConcreteStrategySubtract's execute()");
        return a - b;  // Do a subtraction with a and b
    }

}

class ConcreteStrategyMultiply implements Strategy {

    public int execute(int a, int b) {
        System.out.println("Called ConcreteStrategyMultiply's execute()");
        return a * b;   // Do a multiplication with a and b
    }

}

// Configured with a ConcreteStrategy object and maintains a reference to a Strategy object
class Context {

    private Strategy strategy;

    // Constructor
    public Context(Strategy strategy) {
        this.strategy = strategy;
    }

    public int executeStrategy(int a, int b) {
        return strategy.execute(a, b);
    }

}

It is a lot of work, but what you end up with is worth it a lot of the time, and can be the difference between a big ball of mud, and something that has a chance in hell of being maintained. Now lets do it in ruby

class Context
  def initialize(&strategy)
    @strategy = strategy
  end

  def execute
    @strategy.call
  end
end



a = Context.new { puts 'Doing the task the normal way' }
a.execute #=> Doing the task the normal way

b = Context.new { puts 'Doing the task alternatively' }
b.execute #=> Doing the task alternatively

c = Context.new { puts 'Doing the task even more alternatively' }
c.execute #=> Doing the task even more alternatively

its hard to even call that a pattern, you are just using blocks! When the language covers the needs that the pattern addresses, effectively using the language will mean you don't really need the pattern in most circumstances. It also means you can elegantly address that kind of problem when it would be horrible overkill to do a java style strategy.