Pros of Axum

• Simpler and more intuitive API design, making it easier for beginners to get started
• Tighter integration with the Tokio ecosystem, potentially leading to better performance
• More flexible routing system with support for nested routers

Cons of Axum

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Actix Web
• Less mature and battle-tested in production environments
• Fewer built-in features, requiring more third-party dependencies for advanced functionality

Code Comparison

Axum route definition:

async fn hello_world() -> &'static str {
    "Hello, World!"
}

let app = Router::new().route("/", get(hello_world));

Actix Web route definition:

async fn hello_world() -> impl Responder {
    HttpResponse::Ok().body("Hello, World!")
}

App::new().service(web::resource("/").route(web::get().to(hello_world)))

Both frameworks offer concise and readable route definitions, but Axum's approach is slightly more straightforward. Actix Web provides more control over the response structure out of the box, while Axum focuses on simplicity.

Pros of Warp

• More lightweight and minimalist design, leading to potentially faster compile times
• Stronger focus on type-safe routing and composability
• Easier to understand and get started with for beginners

Cons of Warp

• Less mature ecosystem and fewer extensions compared to Actix-web
• May not perform as well as Actix-web in high-load scenarios
• Fewer built-in features, requiring more manual implementation or third-party crates

Code Comparison

Warp:

let hello = warp::path!("hello" / String)
    .map(|name| format!("Hello, {}!", name));

warp::serve(hello).run(([127, 0, 0, 1], 3030)).await;

Actix-web:

#[get("/hello/{name}")]
async fn hello(web::Path(name): web::Path<String>) -> impl Responder {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

HttpServer::new(|| App::new().service(hello))
    .bind("127.0.0.1:3030")?
    .run()
    .await

Both frameworks offer concise and expressive ways to define routes and handlers. Warp's approach is more functional and composable, while Actix-web uses attribute macros for a more declarative style. Actix-web's code is slightly more verbose but provides more built-in structure.

Pros of Rocket

• More intuitive and developer-friendly syntax
• Built-in form handling and templating support
• Automatic request parsing and type conversion

Cons of Rocket

• Slightly slower performance compared to Actix-web
• Requires nightly Rust compiler (as of the latest stable release)
• Less flexible for low-level customization

Code Comparison

Rocket example:

#[get("/<name>/<age>")]
fn hello(name: String, age: u8) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {} year old named {}!", age, name)
}

Actix-web example:

async fn hello(info: web::Path<(String, u8)>) -> impl Responder {
    let (name, age) = info.into_inner();
    format!("Hello, {} year old named {}!", age, name)

Pros of Gotham

• Emphasizes type-safe routing and middleware
• Designed with a focus on developer ergonomics and ease of use
• Supports asynchronous request handling out of the box

Cons of Gotham

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Actix-web
• Less mature and battle-tested in production environments
• Fewer features and integrations available

Code Comparison

Gotham route definition:

fn router() -> Router {
    build_simple_router(|route| {
        route.get("/").to(say_hello);
    })
}

Actix-web route definition:

#[actix_web::main]
async fn main() -> std::io::Result<()> {
    HttpServer::new(|| {
        App::new().service(web::resource("/").to(say_hello))
    })
    .bind("127.0.0.1:8080")?
    .run()
    .await
}

Both frameworks offer concise and readable route definitions, with Gotham focusing on type-safe routing and Actix-web providing a more flexible approach. Actix-web's ecosystem and performance make it a popular choice for production applications, while Gotham's emphasis on developer ergonomics and type safety may appeal to those prioritizing code maintainability and correctness.

Pros of Iron

• Simpler and more lightweight framework, easier to learn for beginners
• More flexible middleware system, allowing for greater customization
• Longer-established project with a stable API

Cons of Iron

• Less active development and community support
• Lower performance compared to modern alternatives
• Fewer built-in features and integrations

Code Comparison

Iron:

fn hello_world(_: &mut Request) -> IronResult<Response> {
    Ok(Response::with((iron::status::Ok, "Hello World!")))
}

Iron::new(hello_world).http("localhost:3000").unwrap();

Actix-web:

use actix_web::{get, App, HttpServer, Responder};

#[get("/")]
async fn hello() -> impl Responder {
    "Hello World!"
}

#[actix_web::main]
async fn main() -> std::io::Result<()> {
    HttpServer::new(|| App::new().service(hello))
        .bind("127.0.0.1:8080")?
        .run()
        .await
}

Iron provides a more straightforward approach with less boilerplate, while Actix-web offers a more modern, async-first API with additional features and better performance. Actix-web's code is more verbose but provides clearer structure and better support for complex applications.

Pros of Hyper

• Lower-level HTTP library, offering more flexibility and control
• Supports both client and server-side HTTP implementations
• Highly performant and lightweight

Cons of Hyper

• Requires more boilerplate code for basic web applications
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less built-in functionality compared to full-featured web frameworks

Code Comparison

Actix-web example:

use actix_web::{get, App, HttpServer, Responder};

#[get("/")]
async fn hello() -> impl Responder {
    "Hello, World!"
}

#[actix_web::main]
async fn main() -> std::io::Result<()> {
    HttpServer::new(|| App::new().service(hello))
        .bind("127.0.0.1:8080")?
        .run()
        .await
}

Hyper example:

use hyper::service::{make_service_fn, service_fn};
use hyper::{Body, Request, Response, Server};

async fn hello(_: Request<Body>) -> Result<Response<Body>, hyper::Error> {
    Ok(Response::new(Body::from("Hello, World!")))
}

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
    let make_svc = make_service_fn(|_conn| async {
        Ok::<_, hyper::Error>(service_fn(hello))
    });

    let addr = ([127, 0, 0, 1], 8080).into();
    let server = Server::bind(&addr).serve(make_svc);
    if let Err(e) = server.await {
        eprintln!("server error: {}", e);
    }
}