router

Pros of React Router

• Mature and widely adopted library with extensive community support
• Seamless integration with React applications
• Rich feature set including nested routing and route parameters

Cons of React Router

• Larger bundle size compared to TanStack Router
• More opinionated approach, which may limit flexibility in some cases
• Steeper learning curve for advanced features

Code Comparison

React Router:

import { BrowserRouter, Route, Switch } from 'react-router-dom';

<BrowserRouter>
  <Switch>
    <Route path="/home" component={Home} />
    <Route path="/about" component={About} />
  </Switch>
</BrowserRouter>

TanStack Router:

import { Router, Route, RootRoute } from '@tanstack/react-router';

const rootRoute = new RootRoute();
const homeRoute = new Route({ getParentRoute: () => rootRoute, path: '/home', component: Home });
const aboutRoute = new Route({ getParentRoute: () => rootRoute, path: '/about', component: About });
const routeTree = rootRoute.addChildren([homeRoute, aboutRoute]);

Both React Router and TanStack Router offer robust routing solutions for React applications. React Router benefits from its maturity and extensive ecosystem, while TanStack Router provides a more lightweight and flexible approach. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team familiarity, and specific routing needs.

Pros of reach/router

• Simpler API with a more declarative approach to routing
• Built-in accessibility features, including focus management
• Smaller bundle size, which can lead to faster load times

Cons of reach/router

• Less active development and community support
• Limited flexibility for complex routing scenarios
• Fewer advanced features compared to TanStack Router

Code Comparison

reach/router:

import { Router } from "@reach/router"

<Router>
  <Home path="/" />
  <Dashboard path="dashboard" />
  <Profile path="profile/:id" />
</Router>

TanStack Router:

import { RouterProvider, createRouter } from '@tanstack/react-router'

const routeTree = routeTreeFromChildren([
  { path: '/', element: <Home /> },
  { path: '/dashboard', element: <Dashboard /> },
  { path: '/profile/:id', element: <Profile /> },
])

const router = createRouter({ routeTree })

<RouterProvider router={router} />

Both routers offer declarative routing, but TanStack Router provides a more programmatic approach with its route tree creation. reach/router's syntax is more concise, while TanStack Router offers more flexibility and advanced features at the cost of slightly more verbose configuration.

Pros of wouter

• Lightweight and minimalistic, with a smaller bundle size
• Simple API that's easy to learn and use
• No external dependencies, reducing potential conflicts

Cons of wouter

• Less feature-rich compared to router
• Limited support for advanced routing scenarios
• Smaller community and ecosystem

Code Comparison

wouter:

import { Route, Switch } from "wouter";

<Switch>
  <Route path="/users/:id" component={UserProfile} />
  <Route path="/about" component={About} />
</Switch>

router:

import { Route, Router, Routes } from "@tanstack/router";

<Router>
  <Routes>
    <Route path="/users/:id" element={<UserProfile />} />
    <Route path="/about" element={<About />} />
  </Routes>
</Router>

Summary

wouter is a lightweight and simple routing solution for React applications, ideal for smaller projects or those requiring minimal routing functionality. It offers a straightforward API and has no external dependencies, making it easy to integrate and maintain.

router, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive routing solution with advanced features and a larger ecosystem. It's better suited for complex applications that require sophisticated routing capabilities and extensive customization options.

The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project, with wouter being a good fit for simpler applications and router being more appropriate for larger, more complex projects.

Pros of Navi

• Simpler API with less boilerplate code
• Built-in support for code-splitting and lazy loading
• Better integration with static site generation

Cons of Navi

• Less active development and community support
• Fewer advanced features compared to Router
• Limited documentation and examples

Code Comparison

Navi:

import { createBrowserNavigation } from 'navi';

const routes = {
  '/': () => <HomePage />,
  '/about': () => <AboutPage />,
};

const navigation = createBrowserNavigation({ routes });

Router:

import { Router, Route, Link } from '@tanstack/react-router';

const routeTree = rootRoute.addChildren([
  new Route({
    getParentRoute: () => rootRoute,
    path: '/',
    component: HomePage,
  }),
  new Route({
    getParentRoute: () => rootRoute,
    path: '/about',
    component: AboutPage,
  }),
]);

const router = new Router({ routeTree });

Navi offers a more concise syntax for defining routes, while Router provides a more object-oriented approach with additional configuration options. Navi's simplicity may be preferable for smaller projects, whereas Router's flexibility and feature set might be more suitable for larger, complex applications.

Pros of history

• Mature and widely adopted library with a long track record
• Simpler API focused solely on managing browser history
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects

Cons of history

• Limited to managing browser history and doesn't provide full routing capabilities
• Requires additional libraries or custom code for advanced routing features
• Less active development and fewer recent updates

Code Comparison

history:

import { createBrowserHistory } from 'history';

const history = createBrowserHistory();
history.push('/new-path');
history.listen(({ location, action }) => {
  console.log(action, location.pathname, location.state);
});

router:

import { Router, Route, Link } from '@tanstack/react-router';

const router = new Router({
  routes: [
    { path: '/', element: <Home /> },
    { path: '/about', element: <About /> },
  ],
});

function App() {
  return <RouterProvider router={router} />;
}

Summary

history is a focused library for managing browser history, while router is a more comprehensive routing solution. history is simpler and more lightweight, but router offers more advanced routing capabilities out of the box. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of your project and whether you require a full-featured routing system or just basic history management.