Pros of Terraform

• Broader multi-cloud support, not limited to Google Cloud Platform
• More extensive ecosystem with a larger community and wider range of providers
• Mature and battle-tested infrastructure-as-code solution with a longer history

Cons of Terraform

• Steeper learning curve for beginners compared to Cloud Foundation Toolkit
• Less integrated with Google Cloud-specific best practices and patterns
• May require more manual configuration for GCP-specific resources

Code Comparison

Cloud Foundation Toolkit (GCP-specific):

module "vpc" {
  source  = "terraform-google-modules/network/google"
  version = "~> 4.0"

  project_id   = var.project_id
  network_name = "example-vpc"
  subnets      = [
    {
      subnet_name   = "subnet-01"
      subnet_ip     = "10.10.10.0/24"
      subnet_region = "us-central1"
    }
  ]
}

Terraform (generic):

resource "google_compute_network" "vpc_network" {
  name                    = "example-vpc"
  auto_create_subnetworks = false
}

resource "google_compute_subnetwork" "subnet" {
  name          = "subnet-01"
  ip_cidr_range = "10.10.10.0/24"
  region        = "us-central1"
  network       = google_compute_network.vpc_network.id
}

Pros of Pulumi

• Multi-language support (TypeScript, Python, Go, etc.) for infrastructure as code
• Unified platform for managing cloud resources across multiple providers
• Strong typing and IDE support for better developer experience

Cons of Pulumi

• Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with programming languages
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to more established tools
• Potential vendor lock-in with Pulumi's state management

Code Comparison

cloud-foundation-toolkit:

resources:
- name: my-bucket
  type: storage.v1.bucket
  properties:
    location: US
    storageClass: STANDARD

Pulumi:

import * as gcp from "@pulumi/gcp";

const bucket = new gcp.storage.Bucket("my-bucket", {
    location: "US",
    storageClass: "STANDARD",
});

Key Differences

• cloud-foundation-toolkit focuses on Google Cloud Platform, while Pulumi supports multiple cloud providers
• cloud-foundation-toolkit uses YAML or JSON for configuration, Pulumi uses programming languages
• Pulumi offers more flexibility and programmability, while cloud-foundation-toolkit provides a simpler, declarative approach
• cloud-foundation-toolkit is specifically designed for GCP best practices, while Pulumi is more general-purpose

Pros of azure-quickstart-templates

• Larger collection of templates, covering a wide range of Azure services and scenarios
• More community contributions and active development
• Includes templates for complex, multi-resource deployments

Cons of azure-quickstart-templates

• Less standardized structure and naming conventions across templates
• May require more customization for enterprise-grade deployments
• Limited built-in validation and testing tools compared to cloud-foundation-toolkit

Code Comparison

azure-quickstart-templates:

{
    "$schema": "https://schema.management.azure.com/schemas/2019-04-01/deploymentTemplate.json#",
    "contentVersion": "1.0.0.0",
    "parameters": {
        "storageAccountName": {
            "type": "string",
            "metadata": {
                "description": "Specify the storage account name."
            }
        }
    },
    "resources": [
        {
            "type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts",
            "apiVersion": "2021-04-01",
            "name": "[parameters('storageAccountName')]",
            "location": "[resourceGroup().location]",
            "sku": {
                "name": "Standard_LRS"
            },
            "kind": "StorageV2"
        }
    ]
}

cloud-foundation-toolkit:

resources:
- name: ${storage_account_name}
  type: gcp-types/storage-v1:buckets
  properties:
    project: ${project_id}
    name: ${storage_account_name}
    location: ${region}
    storageClass: STANDARD

The azure-quickstart-templates use JSON for ARM templates, while cloud-foundation-toolkit uses YAML for Deployment Manager templates. Azure templates tend to be more verbose, while GCP templates are more concise.

Pros of Terragrunt

• Provides a thin wrapper for Terraform, enhancing its functionality without altering core behavior
• Supports DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) configurations through inheritance and composition
• Offers built-in support for remote state management and locking

Cons of Terragrunt

• Requires additional learning curve on top of Terraform
• May introduce complexity for simpler projects or teams new to infrastructure-as-code
• Less integrated with specific cloud providers compared to Cloud Foundation Toolkit

Code Comparison

Terragrunt configuration:

terraform {
  source = "git::git@github.com:foo/modules.git//app?ref=v0.0.1"
}

inputs = {
  app_name = "my-app"
  env      = "prod"
}

Cloud Foundation Toolkit (using Terraform):

module "gcp_project" {
  source  = "terraform-google-modules/project-factory/google"
  version = "~> 10.1"

  name       = "my-project"
  project_id = "my-project-id"
  org_id     = "1234567890"
  folder_id  = "1234567890"
}