Comparasion
🆚 Comparison: Monkey Patching vs Alternatives
When it comes to modifying or extending code, monkey patching is just one of many options. Here’s a detailed comparison to help you choose the best approach for your use case.
| Feature | Monkey Patching | Wrappers | Inheritance | Pull Requests |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ease of Use | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Quick and easy) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Requires extra boilerplate) | ⭐⭐⭐ (Limited to class-based systems) | ⭐⭐ (Requires upstream approval) |
| Safety | ⭐⭐ (Risk of side effects) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Isolated changes) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Controlled changes) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Official fixes) |
| Maintainability | ⭐⭐ (Hard to track and debug) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Easier to manage) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Clear hierarchy) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Part of official codebase) |
| Performance | ⭐⭐⭐ (Depends on implementation) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Minimal overhead) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Minimal overhead) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Minimal overhead) |
| Global Impact | ⭐⭐ (Affects entire runtime) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Localized to wrapper) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Localized to subclass) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Global but official) |
| Best For | Quick fixes, experiments, customization | Isolated changes, utility functions | Class-based systems, OOP patterns | Long-term fixes, contributing to OSS |
🧠 Pro Tip ╺╸ Compare monkey patching with alternatives like wrappers or inheritance to choose the best approach for your use case!