Pros of herokuish

• Simpler setup and usage for Heroku-like environments
• Better compatibility with existing Heroku buildpacks
• Easier integration with CI/CD pipelines due to Docker-based approach

Cons of herokuish

• Less flexible and customizable compared to pack
• Limited support for non-Heroku buildpacks and platforms
• Slower build times due to full VM emulation

Code Comparison

herokuish:

docker run --rm -v /path/to/app:/tmp/app gliderlabs/herokuish buildpack build

pack:

pack build myapp --builder heroku/buildpacks:20

Key Differences

pack is more versatile and supports various cloud-native buildpacks, while herokuish focuses on Heroku compatibility. pack offers better performance and is more aligned with the Cloud Native Buildpacks specification. herokuish provides a simpler approach for Heroku-like environments but lacks the flexibility and broader platform support of pack.

Both tools serve different use cases, with pack being more suitable for modern cloud-native applications and herokuish better for legacy Heroku-based projects or simpler deployment scenarios.

Pros of Dokku

• Provides a complete PaaS solution out-of-the-box, including deployment, scaling, and management
• Supports multiple programming languages and frameworks without additional configuration
• Offers plugin system for easy extensibility and customization

Cons of Dokku

• Requires more server resources and setup compared to Pack's lightweight approach
• Less flexibility in terms of build process customization
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to PaaS concepts

Code Comparison

Dokku deployment:

git remote add dokku dokku@yourdomain.com:myapp
git push dokku main

Pack build:

pack build myapp --builder heroku/buildpacks:20
docker run --rm -p 8080:8080 myapp

Summary

Dokku is a self-hosted PaaS solution that provides a complete deployment and management ecosystem, while Pack focuses on building container images using Cloud Native Buildpacks. Dokku offers a more comprehensive solution but requires more resources, whereas Pack is lightweight and flexible but requires additional tools for deployment and management. Choose Dokku for an all-in-one PaaS experience, or Pack for a modular approach to container image creation.

Pros of source-to-image

• Designed specifically for OpenShift, offering tight integration with the platform
• Supports incremental builds, potentially reducing build times for subsequent builds
• Provides a flexible and extensible framework for creating custom builder images

Cons of source-to-image

• Limited language and framework support compared to pack
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with OpenShift ecosystem
• Less active community development and slower release cycle

Code Comparison

source-to-image:

s2i build https://github.com/sclorg/django-ex centos/python-35-centos7 my-django-app

pack:

pack build my-app --builder heroku/buildpacks:20

Both tools aim to simplify the containerization process, but they approach it differently. source-to-image is more tightly integrated with OpenShift and focuses on creating reproducible builds using builder images. pack, on the other hand, is more versatile and supports a wider range of languages and frameworks through its buildpack system.

source-to-image excels in OpenShift environments and offers incremental builds, which can be advantageous for large projects. However, it may have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with OpenShift.

pack provides broader language support and is more actively developed, making it a more flexible choice for diverse development environments. Its simplicity and ease of use make it attractive for developers looking for a straightforward containerization solution.