Related
I hate to beat a dead horse, that said, I've gone over so many conflicting articles over the past few days in regards to the use of the singleton pattern.
This question isn't be about which is the better choice in general, rather what makes sense for my use case.
The pet project I'm working on is a game. Some of the code that I'm currently working on, I'm leaning towards using a singleton pattern.
The use cases are as follows:
a globally accessible logger.
an OpenGL rendering manager.
file system access.
network access.
etc.
Now for clarification, more than a couple of the above require shared state between accesses. For instance, the logger is wrapping a logging library and requires a pointer to the output log, the network requires an established open connection, etc.
Now from what I can tell it's more suggested that singletons be avoided, so lets look at how we may do that. A lot of the articles simply say to create the instance at the top and pass it down as a parameter to anywhere that is needed. While I agree that this is technically doable, my question then becomes, how does one manage the potentially massive number of parameters? Well what comes to mind is wrapping the different instances in a sort of "context" object and passing that, then doing something like context->log("Hello World"). Now sure that isn't to bad, but what if you have a sort of framework like so:
game_loop(ctx)
->update_entities(ctx)
->on_preupdate(ctx)
->run_something(ctx)
->only use ctx->log() in some freak edge case in this function.
->on_update(ctx)
->whatever(ctx)
->ctx->networksend(stuff)
->update_physics(ctx)
->ctx->networksend(stuff)
//maybe ctx never uses log here.
You get the point... in some areas, some aspects of the "ctx" aren't ever used but you're still stuck passing it literally everywhere in case you may want to debug something down the line using logger, or maybe later in development, you actually want networking or whatever in that section of code.
I feel like the above example would much rather be suited to a globally accessible singleton, but I must admit, I'm coming from a C#/Java/JS background which may color my view. I want to adopt the mindset/best practices of a C++ programmer, yet like I said, I can't seem to find a straight answer. I also noticed that the articles that suggest just passing the "singleton" as a parameter only give very simplistic use cases that anyone would agree a parameter would be the better way to go.
In this game example, you probably wan't to access logging everywhere even if you don't plan on using it immediately. File system stuff may be all over but until you build out the project, it's really hard to say when/where it will be most useful.
So do I:
Stick with using singletons for these use cases regardless of how "evil/bad" people say it is.
Wrap everything in a context object, and pass it literally everywhere. (seems kinda gross IMO, but if that's the "more accepted/better" way of doing it, so be it.)
Something completely else. (Really lost as to what that might be.)
If option 1, from a performance standpoint, should I switch to using namespace functions, and hiding the "private" variables / functions in anonymous namespaces like most people do in C? (I'm guessing there will be a small boost in performance, but then I'll be stuck having to call an "init" and "destroy" method on a few of these rather than being able to just allow the constructor/destructor to do that for me, still might be worth while?)
Now I realize this may be a bit opinion based, but I'm hoping I can still get a relatively good answer when a more complicated/nested code base is in question.
Edit:
After much more deliberation I've decided to use the "Service Locator" pattern instead. To prevent a global/singleton of the Service Locator I'm making anything that may use the services inherit from a abstract base class that requires the Service Locator be passed when constructed.
I haven't implemented everything yet so I'm still unsure if I'll run into any problems with this approach, and would still love feedback on if this is a reasonable alternative to the singleton / global scope dilemma.
I had read that Service Locator is also somewhat of an anti-pattern, that said, many of the example I found implemented it with statics and/or as a singleton, perhaps using it as I've described removes the aspects that cause it to be an anti-pattern?
Whenever you think you want to use a Singleton, ask yourself the following question: Why is it that it must be ensured at all cost that there never exists more than one instance of this class at any point in time? Because the whole point of the Singleton pattern is to make sure that there can never be more than one instance of the Singleton. That's what the term "singleton" is all about: there only being one. That's why it's called the Singleton pattern. That's why the pattern calls for the constructor to be private. The point of the Singleton pattern is not and never was to give you a globally-accessible instance of something. The fact that there is a global access point to the sole instance is just a consequence of the Singleton pattern. It is not the objective the Singleton pattern is meant to achieve. If all you want is a globally accessible instance of something, then use a global variable. That's exactly what global variables are for…
The Singleton pattern is probably the one design pattern that's singularly more often misunderstood than not. Is it an intrinsic aspect of the very concept of a network connection that there can only ever be one network connection at a time, and the world would come to an end if that constraint was ever to be violated? If the answer is no, then there is no justification for a network connection to ever be modeled as a Singleton. But don't take my word for it, convince yourself by checking out page 127 of Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software where the Singleton pattern was originally described…😉
Concerning your example: If you're ending up having to pass a massive number of parameters into some place then that first and foremost tells you one thing: there are too many responsibilities in that place. This fact is not changed by the use of Singletons. The use of Singletons simply obfuscates this fact because you're not forced to pass all stuff in through one door in the form of parameters but rather just access whatever you want directly all over the place. But you're still accessing these things. So the dependencies of your piece of code are the same. These dependencies are just not expressed explicitly anymore at some interface level but creep around in the mists. And you never know upfront what stuff a certain piece of code depends on until the moment your build breaks after trying to take away one thing that something else happened to depend upon. Note that this issue is not specific to the Singleton pattern. This is a concern with any kind of global entity in general…
So rather than ask the question of how to best pass a massive number of parameters, you should ask the question of why the hell does this one piece of code need access to that many things? For example, do you really need to explicitly pass the network connection to the game loop? Should the game loop not maybe just know the physics world object and that physics world object is at the moment of creation given some object that handles the network communication. And that object in turn is upon initialization told the network connection it is supposed to use? The log could just be a global variable (or is there really anything about the very idea of a log itself that prohibits there ever being more than one log?). Or maybe it would actually make sense for each thread to have its own log (could be a thread-local variable) so that you get a log from each thread in the order of the control flow that thread happened to take rather than some (at best) interleaved mess that would be the output from multiple threads for which you'd probably want to write some tool so that you'd at least have some hope of making sense of it at all…
Concerning performance, consider that, in a game, you'll typically have some parent objects that each manage collections of small child objects. Performance-critical stuff would generally be happening in places where something has to be done to all child objects in such a collection. The relative overhead of first getting to the parent object itself should generally be negligible…
PS: You might wanna have a look at the Entity Component System pattern…
I have read quite a few blog posts and answers on SO pointing to Singleton being a bad design. Previously I implemented a singleton CameraControl class. This class controls a camera which is connected to the system. Under the following knowledge:
Under no circumstance will there be more than one camera (the camera API provided by the camera maker control all cameras).
Using the API of the camera maker in multiple places at the same time have caused problems in the past (e.g. one thread trying to grab an image, the other thread trying to set the shutter speed).
My class only provides several extra methods to display the image captured in a UI. Forward the image to a face detector, ... (i.e. it is not memory intensive).
Is my choice of making this class a singleton class a bad decision?
Singletons are considered a smell because:
They are the moral equivalent of global variables, and thus their use hides dependencies in code rather than revealing them through interfaces.
They promote tight coupling because your code depends on a specific instance of a specific type. What if you wanted your UI to operate against a different camera manager some day?
They make unit testing difficult because they carry state with them for the entire lifetime of the program. When state is carried across from test to test, it can make tests state-dependent, which is a very big smell.
You can read anything, sooner or later. Regardless of what the
some people say, there's no fundamental reason against using
a singleton in the appropriate cases_. In your case, I have
serious doubts, at least the way you describe it. Regardless of
the API of the camera maker (which is probably in C), your
client code will want to treat each individual camera as
a separate object, and there's nothing inherantly unique about
cameras.
Where a singleton probably is appropriate here is if the API of
the camera maker is in C, and you decide to provide
a lightweight C++ wrapper for it, to be used (exclusively) by
your Camera classes. Such light weight wrappers are one
legitimate use of singletons---there's no way in the world you
can have several instances of the library in your code.
(Usually, however, it's easier to have the Camera class address
the API directly, and skip the intermediate wrapper.)
Is my choice of making this class a singleton class a bad decision?
Yes.
Under no circumstance will there be more than one camera (the camera API provided by the camera maker control all cameras).
That doesn't make it necessary to access the camera via a Singleton class.
Using the API of the camera maker in multiple places at the same time have caused problems in the past (e.g. one thread trying to grab an image, the other thread trying to set the shutter speed).
Using a Singleton class will not buy you anything that saves you from those problem that you cannot also do in a non-Singleton class.
My class only provides several extra methods to display the image captured in a UI. Forward the image to a face detector, ... (i.e. it is not memory intensive).
Then there's no need to create a God-like Singleton class.
Furthermore, those little nifty helper functionalities you added to the Singleton class and their interactions with other pieces of code cannot easily be unit tested when residing in a singleton class with global state that cannot properly be set up and torn down between tests.
By proper use of dependency injection in the application composition root, the concrete object lifetime can be managed as if it was a singleton, but the individual clients of that object doesn't need to know that.
I personally think it is reasonable to use Singletons when appropriate. There certainly may be overuse of them in general, but in my opinion they are useful for manager classes controlling hardware resources, which is what you are doing.
Yes and No
No because the problems you see about concurrency are problems you can't "safely" avoid while playing with threads. Sooner or later, bad synchronization mechanisms will come back at you and break your lovely code. You WILL need mutexes and semaphores and such to guard ressources.
Yes, because the singleton is a bad pattern to involve with threads. Check this page about singletons, you will see some pitfalls associated with it. Basically, you're asking for trouble.
Regarding the general "Singletons are evil", it is because it makes it much harder to figure out how it works, they are the OOP version of global variables. Suppose that you have a singleton somewhere, that gets modified in 15 places, how do you track it all? If you had a "real" object, you'd be able to see how it is passed around in parameters and such. The singleton breaks the concept of scope and is easy to transform into a mess.
Singleton and Monostate patterns are both useful in this regard. Your primary consideration (regarding your second point) is to prevent multiple accesses, and neither Singleton nor Monostate prevent this.
Yes, making it a Singleton is a bad design. If you only need one Camera object, just make one.
If you need to ensure that a camera object is used in a non-reentrant way, than that is a responsibility not of the Camera object, but of your threading model. It's a seperate job.
I would like to start my question by stating that this is a C++ design question, more then anything, limiting the scope of the discussion to what is accomplishable in that language.
Let us pretend that I am working on a vehicle simulator that is intended to model modern highway systems. As part of this simulation, entities will be interacting with each other to avoid accidents, stop at stop lights and perhaps eventually even model traffic enforcement with radar guns and subsequent exciting high speed chases.
Being a spatial simulation written in C++, it seems like it would be ideal to start with some kind of Vehicle hierarchy, with cars and trucks deriving from some common base class. However, a common problem I have run in to is that such a hierarchy is usually very rigidly defined, and introducing unexpected changes - modeling a boat for instance - tends to introduce unexpected complexity that tends to grow over time into something quite unwieldy.
This simple aproach seems to suffer from a combinatoric explosion of classes. Imagine if I created a MoveOnWater interface and a MoveOnGround interface, and used them to define Car and Boat. Then lets say I add RadarEquipment. Now I have to do something like add the classes RadarBoat and RadarCar. Adding more capabilities using this approach and the whole thing rapidly becomes quite unreasonable.
One approach I have been investigating to address this inflexibility issue is to do away with the inheritance hierarchy all together. Instead of trying to come up with a type safe way to define everything that could ever be in this simulation, I defined one class - I will call it 'Entity' - and the capabilities that make up an entity - can it drive, can it fly, can it use radar - are all created as interfaces and added to a kind of capability list that the Entity class contains. At runtime, the proper capabilities are created and attached to the entity and functions that want to use these interfaced must first query the entity object and check for there existence. This approach seems to be the most obvious alternative, and is working well for the time being. I, however, worry about the maintenance issues that this approach will have. Effectively any arbitrary thing can be added, and there is no single location in which all possible capabilities are defined. Its not a problem currently, when the total number of things is quite small, but I worry that it might be a problem when someone else starts trying to use and modify the code.
As one potential alternative, I pondered using the template system to achieve type safe while keeping the same kind of flexibility. I imagine I could create entities that inherited whatever combination of interfaces I wanted. Using these objects would entail creating a template class or function that used any combination of the interfaces. One example might be the simple move on road using just the MoveOnRoad interface, whereas more complex logic, like a "high speed freeway chase", could use methods from both MoveOnRoad and Radar interfaces.
Of course making this approach usable mandates the use of boost concept check just to make debugging feasible. Also, this approach has the unfortunate side effect of making "optional" interfaces all but impossible. It is not simple to write a function that can have logic to do one thing if the entity has a RadarEquipment interface, and do something else if it doesn't. In this regard, type safety is somewhat of a curse. I think some trickery with boost any may be able to pull it off, but I haven't figured out how to make that work and it seems like way to much complexity for what I am trying to achieve.
Thus, we are left with the dynamic "list of capabilities" and achieving the goal of having decision logic that drives behavior based on what the entity is capable of becomes trivial.
Now, with that background in mind, I am open to any design gurus telling me where I err'd in my reasoning. I am eager to learn of a design pattern or idiom that is commonly used to address this issue, and the sort of tradeoffs I will have to make.
I also want to mention that I have been contemplating perhaps an even more random design. Even though I my gut tells me that this should be designed as a high performance C++ simulation, a part of me wants to do away with the Entity class and object-orientated foo all together and uses a relational model to define all of these entity states. My initial thought is to treat entities as an in memory database and use procedural query logic to read and write the various state information, with the necessary behavior logic that drives these queries written in C++. I am somewhat concerned about performance, although it would not surprise me if that was a non-issue. I am perhaps more concerned about what maintenance issues and additional complexity this would introduce, as opposed to the relatively simple list-of-capabilities approach.
Encapsulate what varies and Prefer object composition to inheritance, are the two OOAD principles at work here.
Check out the Bridge Design pattern. I visualize Vehicle abstraction as one thing that varies, and the other aspect that varies is the "Medium". Boat/Bus/Car are all Vehicle abstractions, while Water/Road/Rail are all Mediums.
I believe that in such a mechanism, there may be no need to maintain any capability. For example, if a Bus cannot move on Water, such a behavior can be modelled by a NOP behavior in the Vehicle Abstraction.
Use the Bridge pattern when
you want to avoid a permanent binding
between an abstraction and its
implementation. This might be the
case, for example, when the
implementation must be selected or
switched at run-time.
both the abstractions and their
implementations should be extensible
by subclassing. In this case, the
Bridge pattern lets you combine the
different abstractions and
implementations and extend them
independently.
changes in the implementation of an
abstraction should have no impact on
clients; that is, their code should
not have to be recompiled.
Now, with that background in mind, I am open to any design gurus telling me where I err'd in my reasoning.
You may be erring in using C++ to define a system for which you as yet have no need/no requirements:
This approach seems to be the most
obvious alternative, and is working
well for the time being. I, however,
worry about the maintenance issues
that this approach will have.
Effectively any arbitrary thing can be
added, and there is no single location
in which all possible capabilities are
defined. Its not a problem currently,
when the total number of things is
quite small, but I worry that it might
be a problem when someone else starts
trying to use and modify the code.
Maybe you should be considering principles like YAGNI as opposed to BDUF.
Some of my personal favourites are from Systemantics:
"15. A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works"
"16. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."
You're also worring about performance, when you have no defined performance requirements, and no problems with performance:
I am somewhat concerned about
performance, although it would not
surprise me if that was a non-issue.
Also, I hope you know about double-dispatch, which might be useful for implementing anything-to-anything interactions (it's described in some detail in More Effective C++ by Scott Meyers).
I know my gut reaction to global variables is "badd!" but in the two game development courses I've taken at my college globals were used extensively, and now in the DirectX 9 game programming tutorial I am using (www.directxtutorial.com) I'm being told globals are okay in game programming ...? The site also recommends using only structs if you can when doing game programming to help keep things simple.
I'm really confused on this issue, and all the research I've been trying to do is very confusing. I realize there are issues when using global variables (threading issues, they make code harder to maintain, the state of them is hard to track etc) but also there is a cost associated with not using globals, I'd have to pass a loooot of information around very often which can be confusing and I imagine time-costing, although I guess pointers would speed the process up (this is my first time writing a game in C++.) Anyway, I realize there is probably no "right" or "wrong" answer here since both ways work, but I want my code to be as proper as I can so any input would be good, thank you very much!
The trouble with games and globals is that games (nowadays) are threaded at engine level. Game developers using an engine use the engine's abstractions rather than directly programming concurrency (IIRC). In many of the highlevel languages such as C++, threads sharing state is complex. When many concurrent processes share a common resource they have to make sure they don't tread on eachother's toes.
To get around this, you use concurrency control such as mutex and various locks. This in effect makes asynchronous critical sections of code access shared state in a synchronous manner for writing. The topic of concurrency control is too much to explain fully here.
Suffice to say, if threads run with global variables, it makes debugging very hard, as concurrency bugs are a nightmare (think, "which thread wrote that? Who holds that lock?").
There are exceptions in games programming API such as OpenGL and DX. If your shared data/globals are pointers to DX or OpenGL graphics contexts then typically this maps down to GPU operations which don't suffer so much from the same trouble.
Just be careful. Keeping objects representing 'player' or 'zombie' or whatever, and sharing them between threads can be tricky. Spawn 'player' threads and 'zombie group' threads instead and have a robust concurrency abstraction between them based on message passing rather than accessing those object's state across the thread/critical section boundary.
Saying all that, I do agree with the "Say no to globals" point made below.
For more on the complexities of threads and shared state see:
1 POSIX Threads API - I know it is POSIX, but provides a good idea that translates to other API
2 Wikipedia's excellent range of articles on concurrency control mechanisms
3 The Dining Philosopher's problem (and many others)
4 ThreadMentor tutorials and articles on threading
5 Another Intel article, but more of a marketing thing.
6 An ACM article on building multi-threaded game engines
Have worked on AAA game titles, I can tell you that globals should be eradicated immediately before they spread like a cancer. I've seen them corrupt an I/O subsystem so completely that it had to be wholly thrown out to be rewritten.
Say no to globals. Always.
In this respect, there's no difference between games and other programs. While arguably OK in small examples given in elementary courses, global variables are strongly discouraged in real programs.
So if you want to write correct, readable and maintainable code, stay away from global variables as much as possible.
All answers until now deal with the globals/threads issue, but I will add my 2 cents to the struct/class (understood as all public attributes/private attributes + methods) discussion. Preferring structs over classes on the grounds of that being simpler is in the same line of thought of preferring assembler over C++ on the grounds of that being a simpler language.
The fact that you have to think on how your entities are going to be used and provide methods for it makes the concrete entity a little more complex, but greatly simplifies the rest of the code and maintainability. The whole point of encapsulation is that it simplifies the program by providing clear ways in that your data can be modified while maintaining your objects invariants. You control the entry points and what can happen there. Having all attributes public imply that any part of the code can have a small innocent error (forgot to check condition X) and break your invariants completely (health below 0, but no 'death' processing being triggered)
The other common discussion is performance: If I just need to update a datum, then having to call a method will impact my performance. Not really. If methods are simple and you provide them in the header as inlines (inside the class body or outside with the inline keyword), the compiler will be able to copy those instructions to each use place. You get the guarantee that the compiler will not leave out any check by mistake, and no impact in performance.
Having read a bit more what you posted though:
I'm being told globals are okay in
game programming ...? The site also
recommends using only structs if you
can when doing game programming to
help keep things simple.
Games code is no different from other code really. Gratuitous use of globals is bad regardless. And as for 'only use structs', that is just a load of crap. Approach game development on the same principles as any other software - you may find places where you need to bend this but they should be the exception, typically when dealing with low-level hardware issues.
I would say that the advice about globals and 'keeping things simple' is probably a mixture of being easier to learn and old fashioned thinking about performance. When I was being taught about game programming I remember being told that C++ wasn't advised for games as it would be too slow but I've worked on multiple games using every facet of C++ which proves that isn't true.
I would add to everyone's answers here that globals are to be avoided where possible, I wouldn't be afraid to use whatever you need from C++ to make your code understandable and easy to use. If you come up against a performance problem then profile that specific issue and I'll bet that most of the time you won't need to remove use of a C++ feature but just think about your problem better. There may still be some platforms around that require pure C but I don't really have experience of them, even the Gameboy Advance seemed to deal with C++ quite nicely.
The metaissue here is that of state. How much state does any given function depend on, and how much does it change? Then consider how much state is implicit versus explicit, and cross that with the inspect vs. change.
If you have a function/method/whatever that is called DoStuff(), you have no idea from the outside what it depends on, what it needs, and what's going to happen to the shared state. If this is a class member, you also have no idea how that object's state is going to mutate. This is bad.
Contrast to something like cosf(2), this function is understood not to change any global state, and any state that it requires (lookup tables for example) are hidden from view and have no effect on your program-at-large. This is a function that computes a value based on what you give it and it returns that value. It changes no state.
Class member functions then have the opportunity to step up some problems. There's a huge difference between
myObject.hitpoints -= 4;
myObject.UpdateHealth();
and
myObject.TakeDamage(4);
In the first example, an external operation is changing some state that one of its member functions implicitly depends upon. The fact is that these two lines can be separated by many other lines of code begins to make it non-obvious what's going to happen in the UpdateHealth call, even if outside of the subtraction it is the same as the TakeDamage call. Encapsulating the state changes (in the second example) implies that the specifics of the state changes aren't important to the outside world, and hopefully they're not. In the first example, the state changes are explicitly important to the outside world, and this is really no different than setting some globals and calling a function that uses those globals. E.g. hopefully you'd never see
extern float value_to_sqrt;
value_to_sqrt = 2.0f;
sqrt(); // reads the global value_to_sqrt
extern float sqrt_value; // has the results of the sqrt.
And yet, how many people do exactly this sort of thing in other contexts? (Considering especially that class instance state is "global" in regards to that particular instance.)
So- prefer giving explicit instruction to your function calls, and prefer that they return the results directly rather than having to explicitly set state before calling a function and then checking other state after it returns.
The more state dependencies a bit of code has, the harder it'll be to make it multithread safe, but that has already been covered above. The point I want to make is that the problem isn't so much globals but more the visibility of the collection of state that is required for a bit of code to operate (and subsequently how much other code also depends on that state).
Most games aren't multi-threaded, although newer titles are going down that route, and so they've managed to get away with it so far.
Saying that globals are okay in games is like not bothering to fix the brakes on your car because you only drive at 10mph!
It's bad practice which ever way you look at it.
You only have to look at the number of bugs in games to see examples of this.
If in class A you need to access data D, instead of setting D global, you'd better put into A a reference to D.
Globals are NOT intrinsically bad. In C for instance they are part of the language's normal use... and since C++ builds on C they still have a place.
On an aesthetic level, it's better to avoid them where you can sensibly make them part of a class, but if all you do is wrap a bunch of globals into a singleton, you made things worse because at least with globals it's obvious what the point is.
Be careful, but for some things it makes less sense to force OO concepts on what is actually a global value.
Two specific issues that I've encountered in the past:
First: If you're attempting to separate e.g. render phase (const access to most game state) from logic phase (non-const access to most game state) for whatever reason (decoupling render rate from logic rate, synchronizing game state across a network, recording and playback of gameplay at a fixed point in the frame, etc), globals make it very hard to enforce that.
Problems tend to creep in and become hard to debug and eradicate. This also has implications for threaded renderers separate from game logic, or the like (the other answers cover this topic thoroughly).
Second: The presence of many globals tends to bloat the literal pool, which the compiler typically places after each function.
If you get to your state through either a single "struct GlobalTable" which holds globals or a collection of methods on an object or the like, your literal pool tends to be a lot smaller, decreasing the size of the .text section in your executable.
This is mostly a concern for instruction set architectures that can't embed load targets directly into instructions (see e.g. fixed-width ARM or Thumb version 1 instruction encoding on ARM processors). Even on modern processors I'd wager you'll get slightly smaller codegen.
It also hurts doubly when your instruction and data caches are separate (again, as on some ARM processors); you'll tend to get two cachelines loaded where you might only need one with a unified cache. Since the literal pool may count as data, and won't always start on a cacheline boundary, the same cacheline might have to be loaded both into the i-cache and d-cache.
This may count as a "microoptimization", but it's a transform that's relatively easily applied to an entire codebase (e.g. extern struct GlobalTable { /* ... */ } the; and then replace all g_foo with the.foo)... And we've seen code size decrease between 5 and 10 percent in some cases, with a corresponding boost to performance due to keeping the caches cleaner.
I'm going to take a risk and say it depends to me on the scope/scale of your project. Because if you are trying to program an epic game with a boatload of code, then globals could, and easily in the most painful way in hindsight, cost you way more time than they save.
But if you are trying to code, say, something as simple as Super Mario or Metroid or Contra or even simpler, like Pac-Man, then these games were originally coded in 6502 assembly and used globals for almost everything. Just about all the game data and state was stored in data segments, and that didn't stop the devs from shipping a very competent and popular product in spite of working with absolutely inferior tools and engineering standards which would probably horrify people today.
So if you are just writing this kind of small and simple game which has a very limited scope and isn't designed to grow and expand far beyond its original design, isn't designed to be maintained for years and years, with a few thousand lines of simple C++ code, then I don't see the big deal of using a global here or a singleton there. Someone obsessed with trying to engineer Super Mario with the soundest engineering techniques with SOLID and a DI framework could end up taking far, far longer to ship than even the devs who wrote it in 6502 asm.
And I'm getting old and there's something to it there when I look at these old simple games and how they were coded, and it almost seems like the devs were doing something right in spite of the hard-coded magic numbers and globals all over the place while I spend my career fumbling around and trying to figure out the best way to engineer things. That said this is probably a very unpopular opinion, and not one I would have liked either a decade or two ago, but there's something to it. I don't look at the 6502 asm of Metroid and think, "these devs underengineered their product and their lives would have been so much easier if they did this or that." Seems like they did things just about right.
But again this is for small-scale stuff, maybe in the indie category of games by today's standards, and in the smaller of the indie games among them, and far from doing anything ground-breaking in terms of how much data it can process or using cutting-edge hardware techniques. If in doubt, I'd definitely suggest to err on the side of avoiding globals. It's also a little bit trickier in C++ as opposed to say, C, since you can have objects with constructor and destructors, and initialization and destruction order isn't well-defined and easily predictable for global objects. There I'd say to lean even more on the side of avoiding globals since they can trip you up in whole new ways when you aren't explicitly initializing and destroying them yourself in a predictable order. And naturally if you want to multithread a lot beyond a critical loop here and there, then your ability to reason about thread-safety of any particular code will be severely diminished if you cannot minimize the scope/visibility of your game state to the minimum of places.
I have a few classes in a project that should be created only once.
What is the best way to do that?,
They can be created as static object.
Can be created as singleton
Can be created as global.
What is the best design pattern to implement this?
I am thinking of creating all classes as singleton, but that would create lot of singletons. Is it good programming practice to have lot of singletons?
What are the pros and cons for using singletons?
Take a look at Steve Yegge's blog post about this - Singleton Considered Stupid
If they only need to be created once, that doesn't mandate they should be singletons.
If X is a singleton, it's implied there is one instance.
If X has one instance, that doesn't mean it should be a singleton.
Use a singleton if you require there be only one instance of the class, and that it be globally accessible. In your case, simply only needing one isn't reason enough. Globals are bad, singletons are glorified globals.
Most often, you don't need them. You'll see it a lot in bad code because of the very mentality: I only need one, that must mean I should make it singleton! (Wrong) For example, I've finished the technical design of the most powerful game engine I've ever done to date. It has 2 singletons, for memory and threading. A very large project, and I only have two!
More context would help us give you better information.
I suggest you look at some of the videos and articles that Miško Hevery of Google has done. First a video: "Clean Code Talks: Global State and Singletons" and his blog.
The general concensus is that Singletons are OK in a few rare instances, for example logging, but in most other situations you want to use dependency injection. Singletons make it harder to test your code and they hide dependencies so that your classes cannot be instantiated easily in isolation.
Singletons have a few problems -- they're hard to test, hard to replace, and hard to extend. There's usually a better way.
One of my favourite articles on the singleton is Singletons are Pathological Liars by Miško Hevery. Essentially, they encourage "hidden" behaviour that is very hard to learn and test.
There are projects where you can't practically avoid using globals. All kinds of service locators or dependency-injection frameworks still rely on global (not always static variable, but always global of some sort) storage of objects.
However, singletons are a sign of a problem:
First, singleton as a canonical pattern doesn't go well with interfaces and abstraction. It can be fixed though - accessing it through factory.
Worse, singletons are inflexible - they don't have any means of identifying object beyond its type. ( Well, in C++ they do through templates, but it's a different story). In that sense they are actually worse than static variables. In the long run it pays off using a framework where many instances of the same type can be accessed.
And most importantly, lots of singletons means lots of distant relationships between objects. Which means your system is probably more complex than it needs to be and will be much harder to develop, test and manage. Simply switching to locators or DI won't help there, it's a matter of underlying design principles.
A singleton is effectively global state. If you're going to create lots of singletons you're going to create lots of global state, only in won't necessarily look like global state.
This makes it hard to do things like build unit tests, provide mock classes and reuse code because its really easy to
couple the current state to a function. i.e. function foo is only valid when class X is in state Z, otherwise it doesn't work.
It's also problematic to build a thread safe singleton correctly.
Singletons can be good for coordinating access to a resource, particularly one that doesn't have much state and is expensive to construct.
So why do you think you need lots of singletons? you may get better responses if you ask about your problem domain and what issue you are hitting.
In programming there are no silver bullets. Making every class a singleton will not magically make your code "better". Singletons are a tool for that solve a specific problem I studying more about singletons.
To use singleton pattern in your project should be a well thought out and careful design decision, because its a one way track with very little scope for backtracking. I have practically used it in one of my project for a commercial product in a multithreading environment and faced multitude of problems. But this doesn't mean it's an untouchable pattern. The point is anything which can be achieved with singleton can be achieved without it, with less hassles and complexity. For more on this you can track this question I asked some months back. It has interesting links and insight into the singleton pattern