Pros of Express

• Lightweight and minimalist, offering more flexibility and control
• Larger ecosystem with extensive middleware and plugins
• Faster performance due to its simplicity

Cons of Express

• Requires more manual setup and configuration
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistent project structures
• Lacks built-in features like ORM, making it less suitable for rapid development

Code Comparison

Express:

const express = require('express');
const app = express();

app.get('/', (req, res) => {
  res.send('Hello World!');
});

Sails:

// api/controllers/HelloController.js
module.exports = {
  index: function (req, res) {
    return res.send('Hello World!');
  }
};

Express provides a more direct approach to routing, while Sails uses a controller-based structure. Sails offers a higher level of abstraction, which can be beneficial for larger applications but may feel overly complex for simple projects.

Express is ideal for developers who want full control over their application structure and prefer to choose their own tools and libraries. Sails, on the other hand, is better suited for rapid development of data-driven applications, offering built-in ORM, WebSocket support, and a more opinionated project structure.

Pros of Nest

• Built on TypeScript, offering strong typing and better tooling support
• Modular architecture with dependency injection, promoting cleaner and more maintainable code
• Extensive ecosystem with built-in support for GraphQL, WebSockets, and microservices

Cons of Nest

• Steeper learning curve due to its complex architecture and TypeScript requirements
• Potentially slower development speed for simple applications compared to Sails
• Heavier framework with more boilerplate code

Code Comparison

Nest controller:

@Controller('cats')
export class CatsController {
  @Get()
  findAll(): string {
    return 'This action returns all cats';
  }
}

Sails controller:

module.exports = {
  findAll: function(req, res) {
    return res.send('This action returns all cats');
  }
};

Nest offers a more structured approach with decorators and TypeScript, while Sails provides a simpler, more straightforward JavaScript implementation. Nest's approach may lead to better maintainability in larger projects, but Sails' simplicity can be advantageous for rapid development of smaller applications.

Pros of Feathers

• Lightweight and modular architecture, allowing for easier customization and scalability
• Strong support for real-time applications with built-in WebSocket integration
• Flexible database support, including SQL and NoSQL options

Cons of Feathers

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to its ecosystem
• Less opinionated structure compared to Sails, which may require more decision-making

Code Comparison

Feathers service creation:

const feathers = require('@feathersjs/feathers');
const app = feathers();

app.use('messages', {
  async find() {
    return [{ id: 1, text: 'Hello' }];
  }
});

Sails model definition:

module.exports = {
  attributes: {
    text: { type: 'string', required: true },
    user: { model: 'user' }
  }
};

Both frameworks offer easy-to-use APIs for creating services or models, but Feathers focuses on a more functional approach, while Sails follows a more traditional ORM-like structure.

Feathers excels in real-time applications and provides more flexibility, while Sails offers a more structured, convention-over-configuration approach that may be easier for beginners to grasp. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Strapi

• More modern and actively maintained, with frequent updates and a larger community
• Provides a user-friendly admin panel out-of-the-box for content management
• Offers a plugin system for easy extensibility and customization

Cons of Strapi

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to headless CMS concepts
• Less flexible for building complex, custom applications compared to Sails
• Requires more server resources due to its feature-rich nature

Code Comparison

Strapi (Content-Type definition):

module.exports = {
  attributes: {
    title: {
      type: 'string',
      required: true
    },
    content: {
      type: 'richtext'
    }
  }
};

Sails (Model definition):

module.exports = {
  attributes: {
    title: { type: 'string', required: true },
    content: { type: 'string' }
  }
};

Both frameworks use similar syntax for defining data models, but Strapi offers more built-in content types like 'richtext' for enhanced content management capabilities.

Pros of AdonisJS

• More modern and actively maintained, with frequent updates and a growing ecosystem
• Built-in TypeScript support, providing better type safety and developer experience
• Robust CLI tools for scaffolding and development, enhancing productivity

Cons of AdonisJS

• Smaller community and fewer third-party packages compared to Sails
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to TypeScript or opinionated frameworks

Code Comparison

AdonisJS:

import { HttpContextContract } from '@ioc:Adonis/Core/HttpContext'

export default class UsersController {
  public async index({ response }: HttpContextContract) {
    const users = await User.all()
    return response.json(users)
  }
}

Sails:

module.exports = {
  async find(req, res) {
    const users = await User.find();
    return res.json(users);
  }
};

Both frameworks offer MVC architecture and RESTful API development, but AdonisJS leverages TypeScript for enhanced type safety and developer experience. Sails, being older, has a larger community and more third-party integrations but may lack some modern features. AdonisJS provides a more structured approach with its dependency injection system, while Sails offers more flexibility in its configuration. Ultimately, the choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and preference for TypeScript or JavaScript.

Pros of Koa

• Lightweight and minimalist, offering better performance and flexibility
• Supports modern JavaScript features like async/await out of the box
• Highly extensible with a rich ecosystem of middleware

Cons of Koa

• Requires more setup and configuration for complex applications
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Node.js or Express-style frameworks
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to more established frameworks

Code Comparison

Sails.js (Controller):

module.exports = {
  hello: function(req, res) {
    return res.send('Hello, World!');
  }
};

Koa.js:

const Koa = require('koa');
const app = new Koa();

app.use(async ctx => {
  ctx.body = 'Hello, World!';
});

Sails provides a more structured, opinionated approach with built-in MVC architecture, while Koa offers a minimal foundation that developers can build upon. Sails is better suited for rapid development of full-stack applications, whereas Koa shines in scenarios where developers need fine-grained control over their application structure and middleware stack.