Switch statements are bad? [closed]

Solution 1:

A switch is like any other control structure. There are places where it's the best/cleanest solution, and many more places where it's completely inappropriate. It's just abused way more than other control structures.

In OO design, it's generally considered preferable in a situation like yours to use different message types/classes that inherit from a common message class, then use overloaded methods to "automatically" differentiate between the different types.

In a case like yours, you could use an enumeration that maps to your action codes, then attach an attribute to each enumerated value that will let you use generics or type-building to build different Action sub-class objects so that the overloading method will work.

But that's a real pain.

Evaluate whether there's a design option such as the enumeration that is feasible in your solution. If not, just use the switch.

Solution 2:

'Bad' switch statements are often those switching on object type (or something that could be an object type in another design). In other words hardcoding something that might be better handled by polymorphism. Other kinds of switch statements might well be OK

You will need a switch statement, but only one. When you receive the message, call a Factory object to return an object of the appropriate Message subclass (Move, Attack, etc), then call a message->doit() method to do the work.

That means if you add more message types, only the factory object has to change.