Pros of Proxygen

• More comprehensive HTTP server framework with additional features like load balancing and traffic shaping
• Better suited for large-scale, high-performance applications
• Actively maintained by Facebook, with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of Proxygen

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive feature set
• Heavier resource footprint, which may be overkill for smaller projects
• C++ only, while Beast supports both C++ and C

Code Comparison

Beast (HTTP request):

http::request<http::string_body> req{http::verb::get, target, version};
req.set(http::field::host, host);
req.set(http::field::user_agent, BOOST_BEAST_VERSION_STRING);

Proxygen (HTTP request):

proxygen::HTTPMessage req;
req.setMethod(proxygen::HTTPMethod::GET);
req.setURL(target);
req.getHeaders().set(proxygen::HTTP_HEADER_HOST, host);
req.getHeaders().set(proxygen::HTTP_HEADER_USER_AGENT, "proxygen");

Both libraries provide similar functionality for creating HTTP requests, but Proxygen uses a more object-oriented approach with dedicated classes for HTTP messages and headers.

Pros of cpp-httplib

• Lightweight and header-only library, easy to integrate
• Simple API, making it straightforward to use for basic HTTP operations
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of cpp-httplib

• Limited feature set compared to Beast's comprehensive offerings
• May not be as performant for high-load scenarios
• Less extensive documentation and community support

Code Comparison

cpp-httplib:

#include <httplib.h>

int main() {
    httplib::Server svr;
    svr.Get("/", [](const httplib::Request&, httplib::Response& res) {
        res.set_content("Hello, World!", "text/plain");
    });
    svr.listen("localhost", 8080);
}

Beast:

#include <boost/beast/core.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/http.hpp>
#include <boost/asio.hpp>

namespace http = boost::beast::http;

int main() {
    boost::asio::io_context ioc;
    boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor acceptor(ioc, {boost::asio::ip::tcp::v4(), 8080});
    // Additional setup and request handling code required
}

Beast offers more flexibility and power but requires more setup code. cpp-httplib provides a simpler interface for basic HTTP server functionality, making it easier to get started quickly. However, Beast's comprehensive feature set and integration with Boost libraries make it more suitable for complex, high-performance applications.

Pros of cpprestsdk

• Cross-platform support for Windows, Linux, macOS, and mobile platforms
• Built-in support for JSON parsing and manipulation
• Extensive documentation and Microsoft backing

Cons of cpprestsdk

• Larger footprint and potentially slower performance
• Less flexible for low-level networking tasks
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to asynchronous programming

Code Comparison

Beast:

#include <boost/beast/core.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/http.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/version.hpp>
#include <boost/asio/ip/tcp.hpp>
#include <boost/config.hpp>

cpprestsdk:

#include <cpprest/http_client.h>
#include <cpprest/filestream.h>
#include <cpprest/json.h>

Beast focuses on providing low-level HTTP and WebSocket functionality, while cpprestsdk offers a higher-level abstraction for RESTful services. Beast's approach allows for more fine-grained control over network operations, whereas cpprestsdk simplifies common tasks like JSON handling and HTTP requests.

Beast is part of the Boost ecosystem, benefiting from its extensive testing and community support. cpprestsdk, backed by Microsoft, offers broader platform support and integration with other Microsoft technologies.

Developers should choose based on their specific needs: Beast for performance-critical or low-level networking tasks, and cpprestsdk for rapid development of cross-platform REST clients and servers with built-in JSON support.

Pros of uWebSockets

• Significantly higher performance and lower latency
• Smaller memory footprint and resource usage
• Built-in support for WebSocket compression

Cons of uWebSockets

• Less comprehensive documentation and examples
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Beast
• More focused on WebSockets, less versatile for general HTTP handling

Code Comparison

Beast:

#include <boost/beast/core.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/websocket.hpp>

namespace beast = boost::beast;
namespace websocket = beast::websocket;

websocket::stream<tcp::socket> ws{ioc};
ws.accept();
ws.write(net::buffer(std::string("Hello, WebSocket!")));

uWebSockets:

#include <uwebsockets/App.h>

uWS::App().ws<PerSocketData>("/*", {
    .message = [](auto *ws, std::string_view message, uWS::OpCode opCode) {
        ws->send("Hello, WebSocket!", opCode);
    }
}).listen(9001, [](auto *listen_socket) {
    if (listen_socket) {
        std::cout << "Listening on port " << 9001 << std::endl;
    }
}).run();

Both libraries offer WebSocket functionality, but uWebSockets provides a more concise API for setting up a WebSocket server. Beast, being part of Boost, offers a more traditional C++ approach with greater flexibility for low-level control.

Pros of awesome-cpp

• Comprehensive collection of C++ resources and libraries
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Covers a wide range of C++ topics and use cases

Cons of awesome-cpp

• Not a functional library itself, just a curated list
• May include outdated or less maintained projects
• Requires additional effort to evaluate and integrate listed resources

Code comparison

Not applicable, as awesome-cpp is a curated list and doesn't contain actual code. Beast, on the other hand, is a functional library. Here's a simple example of using Beast:

#include <boost/beast/core.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/http.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/version.hpp>

namespace http = boost::beast::http;

http::request<http::string_body> req{http::verb::get, "/", 11};
req.set(http::field::host, "example.com");
req.set(http::field::user_agent, BOOST_BEAST_VERSION_STRING);

Summary

Beast is a C++ library for building HTTP and WebSocket applications, while awesome-cpp is a curated list of C++ resources. Beast provides actual functionality for network programming, whereas awesome-cpp serves as a valuable reference for discovering various C++ tools and libraries, including networking solutions like Beast itself.

Pros of json

• Lightweight and header-only library, easy to integrate
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Wide language support (C++11 and later)

Cons of json

• Limited to JSON parsing and manipulation
• May have slower performance for large datasets
• Lacks built-in networking capabilities

Code Comparison

json:

#include <nlohmann/json.hpp>
using json = nlohmann::json;

json j = {
  {"name", "John"},
  {"age", 30},
  {"city", "New York"}
};
std::string serialized = j.dump();

Beast:

#include <boost/beast/core.hpp>
#include <boost/beast/http.hpp>
namespace http = boost::beast::http;

http::request<http::string_body> req{http::verb::get, "/api/data", 11};
req.set(http::field::host, "example.com");
req.set(http::field::user_agent, "Beast");

Beast is a more comprehensive networking library with HTTP and WebSocket support, while json focuses solely on JSON manipulation. Beast is part of the Boost ecosystem, offering integration with other Boost libraries. json is simpler to use for JSON-specific tasks but lacks networking features. Beast requires more setup but provides a complete solution for HTTP and WebSocket communication.