Pros of Ant Design Pro

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a complete enterprise-level React solution
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and support
• Provides a wide range of pre-built components and templates for rapid development

Cons of Ant Design Pro

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive features
• Heavier and potentially slower performance compared to lighter alternatives
• Less flexibility for customization without extensive configuration

Code Comparison

Ant Design Pro (TypeScript):

import { PageContainer } from '@ant-design/pro-components';
import { Card, Alert, Typography } from 'antd';
import styles from './Welcome.module.less';

const Welcome: React.FC = () => {
  return (
    <PageContainer>
      <Card>
        <Alert
          message="Faster and stronger heavy-duty components have been released."
          type="success"
          showIcon
          banner
          style={{
            margin: -12,
            marginBottom: 24,
          }}
        />
        <Typography.Text strong>
          <a
            href="https://procomponents.ant.design/components/table"
            rel="noopener noreferrer"
            target="__blank"
          >
            Welcome
          </a>
        </Typography.Text>
      </Card>
    </PageContainer>
  );
};

export default Welcome;

Hooks-Admin (JavaScript):

import { useEffect } from "react";
import { Layout } from "antd";
import { setAuthButtons } from "@/redux/modules/auth/action";
import { updateCollapse } from "@/redux/modules/menu/action";
import { connect } from "react-redux";
import LayoutMenu from "./components/Menu";
import LayoutHeader from "./components/Header";
import LayoutTabs from "./components/Tabs";
import LayoutFooter from "./components/Footer";
import "./index.less";

const LayoutIndex = (props) => {
	const { Sider, Content } = Layout;
	const { isCollapse, updateCollapse, setAuthButtons } = props;

	// 获取按钮权限列表
	useEffect(() => {
		setAuthButtons();
	}, []);

	return (
		// Layout code...
	);
};

const mapStateToProps = (state) => state.menu;
const mapDispatchToProps = { setAuthButtons, updateCollapse };
export default connect(mapStateToProps, mapDispatchToProps)(LayoutIndex);

Pros of vue-element-admin

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Comprehensive set of pre-built components and layouts

Cons of vue-element-admin

• Based on Vue 2, which may be considered outdated for new projects
• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive features
• Heavier bundle size due to the inclusion of many features

Code Comparison

vue-element-admin (Vue 2):

import Vue from 'vue'
import Router from 'vue-router'

Vue.use(Router)

export const constantRoutes = [
  {
    path: '/login',
    component: () => import('@/views/login/index'),
    hidden: true
  }
]

Hooks-Admin (React with TypeScript):

import { lazy } from "react";
import { RouteObject } from "@/routers/interface";

const Login = lazy(() => import("@/views/login/index"));

const loginRouter: Array<RouteObject> = [
  {
    path: "/login",
    element: <Login />,
    meta: {
      requiresAuth: false,
      title: "登录页",
      key: "login"
    }
  }
];

The code comparison shows the difference in routing setup between the two projects. vue-element-admin uses Vue Router with Vue 2 syntax, while Hooks-Admin utilizes React Router with TypeScript and lazy loading for components.

Pros of vue-vben-admin

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Built-in internationalization support

Cons of vue-vben-admin

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Heavier bundle size, which may impact initial load times
• More opinionated structure, potentially limiting flexibility

Code Comparison

vue-vben-admin:

<template>
  <BasicTable @register="registerTable">
    <template #toolbar>
      <a-button type="primary" @click="handleCreate">Create</a-button>
    </template>
  </BasicTable>
</template>

Hooks-Admin:

<ProTable
  columns={columns}
  request={getTableList}
  rowKey="id"
  pagination={{
    pageSize: 10
  }}
  toolBarRender={() => [
    <Button key="button" icon={<PlusOutlined />} type="primary">
      New
    </Button>
  ]}
/>

Both projects offer robust admin templates, but vue-vben-admin provides a more feature-rich environment with better documentation and community support. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potentially slower initial load times. Hooks-Admin, while less comprehensive, offers a simpler and more flexible approach that may be preferable for smaller projects or developers who prioritize customization.

Pros of iview-admin

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Comprehensive documentation and examples
• Built-in support for internationalization (i18n)

Cons of iview-admin

• Based on older Vue 2 technology
• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Heavier and potentially slower performance due to older architecture

Code Comparison

iview-admin (Vue 2):

<template>
  <div>
    <Table :columns="columns" :data="data"></Table>
  </div>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  data() {
    return {
      columns: [...],
      data: [...]
    }
  }
}
</script>

Hooks-Admin (React with Hooks):

import React from 'react';
import { Table } from 'antd';

const MyTable = () => {
  const columns = [...];
  const data = [...];

  return <Table columns={columns} dataSource={data} />;
};

export default MyTable;

The code comparison highlights the difference in syntax and structure between Vue 2 (used in iview-admin) and React with Hooks (used in Hooks-Admin). iview-admin uses Vue's template syntax and options API, while Hooks-Admin leverages React's functional components and hooks for a more modern and concise approach.

Pros of vue-admin-better

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Includes built-in internationalization support

Cons of vue-admin-better

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture
• Heavier bundle size, potentially impacting performance
• Less flexibility for customization compared to Hooks-Admin

Code Comparison

vue-admin-better:

<template>
  <el-config-provider :locale="locale">
    <router-view />
  </el-config-provider>
</template>

Hooks-Admin:

const App: React.FC = () => {
  return (
    <BrowserRouter>
      <AuthRouter>
        <Router />
      </AuthRouter>
    </BrowserRouter>
  );
};

vue-admin-better uses Vue.js with Element Plus components, while Hooks-Admin is built with React and custom components. The vue-admin-better example shows the use of internationalization, while Hooks-Admin focuses on routing and authentication.

Both projects aim to provide admin dashboard templates, but they differ in their approach and technology stack. vue-admin-better offers a more feature-rich solution out of the box, while Hooks-Admin provides a simpler, more customizable foundation for building admin interfaces.

Pros of umi

• More comprehensive framework with built-in routing, state management, and plugins
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and examples
• Better performance optimization and code splitting capabilities

Cons of umi

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Less flexibility for custom configurations compared to Hooks-Admin
• Potentially overkill for smaller projects or simple admin interfaces

Code Comparison

umi routing configuration:

export default {
  routes: [
    { path: '/', component: '@/pages/index' },
    { path: '/users', component: '@/pages/users' },
  ],
};

Hooks-Admin routing configuration:

const routes = [
  { path: '/', element: <Home /> },
  { path: '/users', element: <Users /> },
];

Both repositories provide React-based admin interfaces, but umi offers a more comprehensive framework with additional features and optimizations. Hooks-Admin, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more flexible approach, which may be preferable for developers who want more control over their project structure and dependencies. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the developer's preferences regarding framework complexity and customization options.