Catch2

Pros of Catch2

• Established and widely adopted testing framework for C++
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Supports a wide range of C++ versions and compilers

Cons of Catch2

• Larger codebase and potentially slower compilation times
• May have more features than needed for simple projects
• Requires more setup and configuration for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain the same codebase, as they are the same project. Here's a sample of how a basic test might look in Catch2:

#include <catch2/catch_test_macros.hpp>

TEST_CASE("Addition works", "[math]") {
    REQUIRE(1 + 1 == 2);
    CHECK(2 + 2 == 4);
}

Summary

The comparison between Catch2 and Catch2 is not applicable, as they are the same project. The repository catchorg/Catch2 is the official repository for the Catch2 testing framework. It's a popular, header-only C++ testing framework known for its simplicity and powerful features. The framework is widely used in the C++ community and provides a robust set of tools for unit testing and BDD-style specifications.

Pros of GoogleTest

• More extensive feature set, including mocking capabilities with GoogleMock
• Better support for parameterized tests and test fixtures
• Stronger integration with other Google testing tools and frameworks

Cons of GoogleTest

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API and setup
• Requires separate compilation, increasing build times
• Less intuitive syntax for writing tests compared to Catch2

Code Comparison

GoogleTest:

TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesZeroInput) {
  EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(0), 1);
}

TEST_F(QueueTest, IsEmptyInitially) {
  EXPECT_TRUE(queue.IsEmpty());
}

Catch2:

TEST_CASE("Factorials are computed", "[factorial]") {
  REQUIRE(Factorial(0) == 1);
}

TEST_CASE("Queue is empty initially", "[queue]") {
  Queue queue;
  REQUIRE(queue.IsEmpty());
}

Both GoogleTest and Catch2 are popular C++ testing frameworks. GoogleTest offers a more comprehensive set of features and better integration with other Google tools, but comes with a steeper learning curve. Catch2, on the other hand, provides a simpler, header-only solution with more intuitive syntax, making it easier for beginners to get started with testing.

Pros of doctest

• Faster compile times due to header-only implementation
• Simpler setup with a single header file
• Smaller binary size and lower memory footprint

Cons of doctest

• Less extensive feature set compared to Catch2
• Fewer assertion macros and test case variants
• Limited support for BDD-style syntax

Code Comparison

doctest:

#define DOCTEST_CONFIG_IMPLEMENT_WITH_MAIN
#include "doctest.h"

TEST_CASE("addition") {
    CHECK(1 + 1 == 2);
}

Catch2:

#define CATCH_CONFIG_MAIN
#include <catch2/catch.hpp>

TEST_CASE("addition", "[math]") {
    REQUIRE(1 + 1 == 2);
}

Both frameworks offer a simple syntax for writing tests, but Catch2 provides more options for test case organization and labeling. doctest's implementation is more compact, which contributes to its faster compile times and smaller footprint.

While doctest excels in simplicity and performance, Catch2 offers a more comprehensive set of features and greater flexibility in test organization. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, with doctest being ideal for projects prioritizing speed and simplicity, and Catch2 better suited for larger projects requiring more advanced testing capabilities.

Pros of ut

• Faster compilation times and smaller binary sizes
• Header-only library with no external dependencies
• Supports C++20 features and concepts

Cons of ut

• Less mature and less widely adopted than Catch2
• Fewer features and less extensive documentation
• May require more recent compiler versions for full functionality

Code Comparison

Catch2:

#include <catch2/catch_test_macros.hpp>

TEST_CASE("Addition works") {
    REQUIRE(1 + 1 == 2);
    CHECK(2 + 2 == 4);
}

ut:

#include <boost/ut.hpp>

int main() {
  using namespace boost::ut;
  "Addition works"_test = [] {
    expect(1 + 1 == 2_i);
    expect(2 + 2 == 4_i);
  };
}

Both libraries offer concise syntax for writing unit tests, but ut uses a more modern C++ approach with its inline literals and lambda-based test definitions. Catch2 follows a more traditional macro-based style, which may be more familiar to some developers.

Pros of fmt

• Focused on string formatting and output, providing a more specialized and optimized solution
• Offers a simpler API for common formatting tasks, making it easier to use for basic string operations
• Provides better performance for string formatting compared to alternatives like std::stringstream

Cons of fmt

• Limited to string formatting and output, lacking the comprehensive testing features of Catch2
• May require additional libraries or tools for more complex testing scenarios
• Less suitable for writing unit tests and performing assertions

Code Comparison

fmt:

#include <fmt/core.h>

std::string result = fmt::format("Hello, {}!", "world");
fmt::print("The result is: {}\n", result);

Catch2:

#include <catch2/catch_test_macros.hpp>

TEST_CASE("My test case") {
    REQUIRE(2 + 2 == 4);
    CHECK(std::string("hello") == "hello");
}

Summary

fmt is a specialized library for string formatting and output, offering simplicity and performance for these tasks. Catch2, on the other hand, is a comprehensive testing framework designed for writing and running unit tests. While fmt excels in string manipulation, Catch2 provides a robust set of tools for test-driven development and assertion checking.