You probably mean template method pattern. You are right, they serve very similar needs. I would say it is better to use template method in cases when you have a "template" algorithm having defined steps where subclasses override these steps to change some details. In case of strategy, you need to create an interface, and instead of inheritance you are using delegation. I would say it is a bit more powerful pattern and maybe better in accordance to DIP - dependency inversion principles. It is more powerful because you clearly define a new abstraction of strategy - a way of doing something, which does not apply to template method. So, if this abstraction makes sense - use it. However, using template method may give you simpler designs in simple cases, which is also important. Consider which words fit better: do you have a template algorithm? Or is the key thing here that you have an abstraction of strategy - new way of doing something

模板方法的例子:

Application.main()
{
Init();
Run();
Done();
}

这里你继承了application，并替换了init, run和done的操作。

策略的例子:

array.sort (IComparer<T> comparer)

在这里，当编写比较器时，您不继承数组。数组将比较算法委托给比较器。

You probably mean template method pattern. You are right, they serve very similar needs. I would say it is better to use template method in cases when you have a "template" algorithm having defined steps where subclasses override these steps to change some details. In case of strategy, you need to create an interface, and instead of inheritance you are using delegation. I would say it is a bit more powerful pattern and maybe better in accordance to DIP - dependency inversion principles. It is more powerful because you clearly define a new abstraction of strategy - a way of doing something, which does not apply to template method. So, if this abstraction makes sense - use it. However, using template method may give you simpler designs in simple cases, which is also important. Consider which words fit better: do you have a template algorithm? Or is the key thing here that you have an abstraction of strategy - new way of doing something

模板方法的例子:

Application.main()
{
Init();
Run();
Done();
}

这里你继承了application，并替换了init, run和done的操作。

策略的例子:

array.sort (IComparer<T> comparer)

在这里，当编写比较器时，您不继承数组。数组将比较算法委托给比较器。

两者的主要区别在于具体算法的选择。

对于Template方法模式，这是在编译时通过子类化模板实现的。每个子类通过实现模板的抽象方法提供不同的具体算法。当客户端调用模板外部接口的方法时，模板会根据需要调用它的抽象方法(内部接口)来调用算法。

class ConcreteAlgorithm : AbstractTemplate
{
    void DoAlgorithm(int datum) {...}
}

class AbstractTemplate
{
    void run(int datum) { DoAlgorithm(datum); }

    virtual void DoAlgorithm() = 0; // abstract
}

相反，策略模式允许在运行时通过包含来选择算法。具体算法由单独的类或函数实现，这些类或函数作为参数传递给策略的构造函数或setter方法。为这个参数选择哪种算法可以根据程序的状态或输入动态变化。

class ConcreteAlgorithm : IAlgorithm
{
    void DoAlgorithm(int datum) {...}
}

class Strategy
{
    Strategy(IAlgorithm algo) {...}

    void run(int datum) { this->algo.DoAlgorithm(datum); }
}

总而言之:

模板方法模式:通过子类化来选择编译时算法 策略模式:通过包容选择运行时算法

我认为主要的区别是，有了模板，你需要一个算法来做一些事情，但让我们说，在算法的中间，你想要运行不同的行为，所以你可以发送一个接口的实现，使算法在运行时动态。

但是对于策略，你实际上有完全不同的算法执行而不仅仅是算法的一个变体，然后你选择运行哪个算法，但是模板你只有一个变体的算法。

最后，你可以实现你想要的，使用模板作为策略，反之亦然，但我看到了区别。

两者都非常相似，客户端代码以类似的方式使用它们。与上面最流行的答案不同，两者都允许在运行时选择算法。

The difference between the two is that while the strategy pattern allows different implementations to use completely different ways of the achieving the desired outcome, the template method pattern specifies an overarching algorithm (the "template" method) which is be used to achieve the result -- the only choice left to the specific implementations (sub-classes) are certain details of the said template method. This is done by having the the template method make call(s) to one or more abstract methods which are overridden (i.e. implemented) by the sub-classes, unlike the template method which itself is not abstract and not overridden by the sub-classes.

客户端代码使用抽象类类型的引用/指针调用模板方法，该引用/指针指向具体子类之一的实例，该实例可以在运行时确定，就像使用策略模式时一样。

我建议你读一下这篇文章。它解释了一个实际案例的差异。

引用自文章

"As one can see implementing classes also depend upon the template method class. This dependency causes to change the template method if one wants to change some of the steps of the algorithm. On the other side strategy completely encapsulates the algorithm. it gives the implementing classes to completely define an algorithm. Therefore if any change arrives one does need to change the code for previously written classes. This was the primary reason I choose strategy for designing up the classes. One feature of template method is that template method controls the algorithm. Which can be a good thing in other situation but in my problem this was restricting me to design the classes. On the other side strategy does not control the steps of an algorithm which enables me to add completely different conversion methods. Hence in my case strategy helps me for implementation. One drawback of strategy is that there is too much code redundancy and less code sharing. As it is obvious in the presented example of this article I have to repeat the same code in four classes again and again. Therefore it is hard to maintain because if the implementation of our system such as step 4 which is common to all is changed then I will have to update this in all 5 classes. On the other side, in template method, I can only change the superclass and the changes are reflected into the sub classes. Therefore template method gives a very low amount of redundancy and high amount of code sharing among the classes. Strategy also allows changing the algorithm at run-time. In template method one will have to re-initialize the object. This feature of strategy provide large amount of flexibility. From design point of view one has to prefer composition over inheritance. Therefore using strategy pattern also became the primary choice for development."