Pros of graphql-js

• Reference implementation of GraphQL, ensuring strict adherence to the specification
• Lightweight and flexible, allowing for custom integrations and extensions
• Provides low-level GraphQL operations, ideal for building custom GraphQL servers

Cons of graphql-js

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Apollo Server
• Less out-of-the-box features and tooling for production-ready GraphQL servers
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to GraphQL

Code Comparison

graphql-js:

const { graphql, buildSchema } = require('graphql');

const schema = buildSchema(`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`);

const root = { hello: () => 'Hello world!' };

graphql(schema, '{ hello }', root).then((response) => {
  console.log(response);
});

Apollo Server:

const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server');

const typeDefs = gql`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`;

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    hello: () => 'Hello world!',
  },
};

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });
server.listen().then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`Server ready at ${url}`);
});

Pros of GraphQL Yoga

• Lightweight and flexible, with a modular architecture
• Easy setup and configuration, with sensible defaults
• Better TypeScript support and type safety

Cons of GraphQL Yoga

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Apollo Server
• Less extensive documentation and fewer learning resources
• May lack some advanced features found in Apollo Server

Code Comparison

Apollo Server:

const server = new ApolloServer({
  typeDefs,
  resolvers,
});
await server.start();
const { url } = await startStandaloneServer(server);
console.log(`🚀 Server ready at ${url}`);

GraphQL Yoga:

const server = createServer({
  schema,
});
server.start();

GraphQL Yoga offers a more concise setup, while Apollo Server provides a more structured approach with explicit server start and standalone server creation.

Both Apollo Server and GraphQL Yoga are popular choices for building GraphQL servers in JavaScript/TypeScript environments. Apollo Server has a larger ecosystem and more extensive features, making it suitable for complex, enterprise-level applications. GraphQL Yoga, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and flexibility, making it an excellent choice for smaller projects or developers who prefer a more lightweight solution.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and specific use cases. Apollo Server may be preferable for larger teams and projects requiring extensive features, while GraphQL Yoga could be ideal for developers seeking a simpler, more flexible GraphQL server solution.

Pros of graphql

• Native Go implementation, offering better performance for Go-based applications
• Lightweight and minimalistic, allowing for more flexibility in implementation
• Closer to the GraphQL specification, providing a more "pure" GraphQL experience

Cons of graphql

• Less feature-rich compared to Apollo Server, requiring more manual setup
• Smaller community and ecosystem, resulting in fewer resources and third-party tools
• Limited built-in tooling for things like subscriptions and file uploads

Code Comparison

apollo-server (JavaScript):

const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server');

const typeDefs = gql`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`;

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    hello: () => 'Hello world!',
  },
};

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });

graphql (Go):

package main

import (
    "github.com/graphql-go/graphql"
)

var schema, _ = graphql.NewSchema(graphql.SchemaConfig{
    Query: graphql.NewObject(graphql.ObjectConfig{
        Name: "RootQuery",
        Fields: graphql.Fields{
            "hello": &graphql.Field{
                Type: graphql.String,
                Resolve: func(p graphql.ResolveParams) (interface{}, error) {
                    return "Hello world!", nil
                },
            },
        },
    }),
})

Pros of awesome-graphql

• Comprehensive collection of GraphQL resources, tools, and libraries
• Community-driven with contributions from various developers
• Covers a wide range of GraphQL-related topics and ecosystems

Cons of awesome-graphql

• Not an actual GraphQL implementation or server
• Requires manual curation and may not always be up-to-date
• Lacks specific features or functionalities found in Apollo Server

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison isn't relevant due to the nature of these repositories, here's a brief example of how they differ:

awesome-graphql (README.md):

## GraphQL Implementations
- [graphql-js](https://github.com/graphql/graphql-js) - A reference implementation of GraphQL for JavaScript
- [graphql-go](https://github.com/graphql-go/graphql) - GraphQL for Go / Golang

Apollo Server (index.js):

const { ApolloServer } = require('apollo-server');
const typeDefs = require('./schema');
const resolvers = require('./resolvers');

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });
server.listen().then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`🚀 Server ready at ${url}`);
});

awesome-graphql serves as a curated list of GraphQL resources, while Apollo Server is an actual GraphQL server implementation. awesome-graphql is beneficial for discovering various GraphQL tools and libraries, but it doesn't provide the out-of-the-box functionality that Apollo Server offers for building GraphQL APIs.

Pros of graphql-java

• More flexible and customizable for Java-based projects
• Better integration with existing Java ecosystems and frameworks
• Supports a wider range of Java versions

Cons of graphql-java

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to GraphQL
• Less opinionated, requiring more manual configuration
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Apollo Server

Code Comparison

graphql-java:

GraphQLSchema schema = GraphQLSchema.newSchema()
    .query(queryType)
    .build();
GraphQL graphQL = GraphQL.newGraphQL(schema).build();
ExecutionResult result = graphQL.execute(query);

Apollo Server:

const server = new ApolloServer({
  typeDefs,
  resolvers,
});
await server.start();
server.applyMiddleware({ app });

Summary

graphql-java is a robust Java implementation of GraphQL, offering more flexibility and customization options for Java-based projects. It integrates well with existing Java ecosystems and supports a wider range of Java versions. However, it has a steeper learning curve and requires more manual configuration compared to Apollo Server.

Apollo Server, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated and easier-to-use solution for JavaScript/Node.js environments. It has a larger community and ecosystem, making it easier to find resources and support. The code comparison shows that Apollo Server requires less boilerplate code to set up a GraphQL server compared to graphql-java.

Choose graphql-java for Java-based projects that require fine-grained control and customization, while Apollo Server is better suited for rapid development in JavaScript environments with its simpler setup and extensive ecosystem.

Pros of GraphQL Engine

• Automatic GraphQL API generation from existing databases
• Real-time subscriptions and live queries out of the box
• Built-in authorization and access control system

Cons of GraphQL Engine

• Less flexibility for custom resolvers and business logic
• Steeper learning curve for non-database-centric applications
• Limited support for non-PostgreSQL databases

Code Comparison

Apollo Server example:

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    books: () => books,
  },
};

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });
server.listen().then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`🚀 Server ready at ${url}`);
});

GraphQL Engine example:

tables:
  - table:
      schema: public
      name: books
    select_permissions:
      - role: user
        permission:
          columns: [id, title, author]
          filter: {}

GraphQL Engine automatically generates the API based on the database schema and permissions, while Apollo Server requires manual resolver implementation. GraphQL Engine's approach is more declarative and database-centric, whereas Apollo Server offers more flexibility for custom logic and data sources.

Both projects have their strengths, with GraphQL Engine excelling in rapid development for database-driven applications and Apollo Server providing more customization options for complex use cases.