Pros of Mongoose

• More feature-rich, including support for WebSockets, MQTT, and CoAP protocols
• Better documentation and examples for various use cases
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of Mongoose

• Dual-licensed: free for open-source projects, but requires a commercial license for closed-source applications
• Larger codebase and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve due to more advanced features

Code Comparison

Mongoose:

struct mg_mgr mgr;
mg_mgr_init(&mgr);
mg_http_listen(&mgr, "http://0.0.0.0:8000", fn, NULL);
for (;;) mg_mgr_poll(&mgr, 1000);

CivetWeb:

struct mg_context *ctx;
const char *options[] = {"listening_ports", "8080", NULL};
ctx = mg_start(NULL, NULL, options);
getchar();  // Wait for user input
mg_stop(ctx);

Both libraries offer simple APIs for creating HTTP servers, but Mongoose's API is more modern and flexible. CivetWeb's approach is simpler and may be easier for beginners to understand. Mongoose's code demonstrates its event-driven nature, while CivetWeb uses a more traditional blocking approach.

Pros of http-parser

• Lightweight and focused solely on HTTP parsing
• Widely used and battle-tested in Node.js ecosystem
• Designed for high performance and low memory footprint

Cons of http-parser

• Limited to HTTP parsing, lacks full web server functionality
• Requires additional components for a complete web server solution
• Less feature-rich compared to CivetWeb's all-in-one approach

Code Comparison

CivetWeb example:

struct mg_context *ctx;
struct mg_callbacks callbacks;
const char *options[] = {"listening_ports", "8080", NULL};

memset(&callbacks, 0, sizeof(callbacks));
ctx = mg_start(&callbacks, NULL, options);

http-parser example:

http_parser_settings settings;
http_parser *parser = malloc(sizeof(http_parser));
http_parser_init(parser, HTTP_REQUEST);
parser->data = NULL;
http_parser_execute(parser, &settings, buf, len);

Summary

CivetWeb is a full-featured embedded web server library, while http-parser focuses solely on HTTP parsing. CivetWeb offers a more comprehensive solution out-of-the-box, including SSL support and WebSocket functionality. http-parser, on the other hand, provides a lightweight and efficient HTTP parsing solution, ideal for integration into larger projects or custom server implementations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of control you need over the HTTP parsing and server functionality.

Pros of uWebSockets

• Higher performance and scalability, especially for WebSocket connections
• Lower memory footprint and CPU usage
• Better suited for high-concurrency scenarios

Cons of uWebSockets

• Less mature and potentially less stable than Civetweb
• Narrower focus on WebSockets, while Civetweb offers a more general-purpose HTTP server
• Steeper learning curve and potentially more complex implementation

Code Comparison

uWebSockets:

uWS::App().get("/hello", [](auto *res, auto *req) {
    res->end("Hello World!");
}).listen(3000, [](auto *token) {
    if (token) {
        std::cout << "Server started on port 3000" << std::endl;
    }
});

Civetweb:

mg_init_library(0);
struct mg_context *ctx = mg_start(NULL, NULL, options);
mg_set_request_handler(ctx, "/hello", hello_handler, NULL);
while (1) {
    mg_poll_server(ctx, 1000);
}

Both libraries offer efficient ways to create web servers, but uWebSockets focuses on high-performance WebSocket handling, while Civetweb provides a more traditional HTTP server approach. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and performance needs.

Pros of cpp-httplib

• Header-only library, making it easy to integrate into projects
• Modern C++ design with support for C++11 and later
• Simple and intuitive API for both client and server implementations

Cons of cpp-httplib

• Less feature-rich compared to Civetweb, focusing primarily on HTTP functionality
• May have lower performance for high-concurrency scenarios
• Limited built-in SSL/TLS support, requiring external libraries for HTTPS

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);
}

Civetweb:

#include "civetweb.h"

int main() {
    struct mg_context *ctx;
    const char *options[] = {"listening_ports", "8080", NULL};
    ctx = mg_start(NULL, NULL, options);
    mg_set_request_handler(ctx, "/", hello, NULL);
    getchar();
    mg_stop(ctx);
    return 0;
}

The code comparison shows that cpp-httplib offers a more modern, C++-style API with lambda functions and built-in routing, while Civetweb uses a C-style API with function pointers and separate routing configuration.

Pros of cpprestsdk

• More comprehensive and feature-rich library for modern C++ development
• Better support for asynchronous programming and concurrency
• Stronger integration with Microsoft technologies and Azure services

Cons of cpprestsdk

• Larger and more complex codebase, potentially steeper learning curve
• Heavier dependency on Boost libraries
• May be overkill for simple web server applications

Code Comparison

cpprestsdk example (HTTP client):

#include <cpprest/http_client.h>

using namespace web::http::client;

http_client client(U("http://example.com"));
client.request(methods::GET, U("/api/data")).then([](http_response response) {
    // Handle response
});

Civetweb example (HTTP server):

#include "civetweb.h"

static int handler(struct mg_connection *conn, void *cbdata) {
    mg_printf(conn, "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\nContent-Type: text/plain\r\n\r\nHello, World!");
    return 200;
}

mg_start(&mg_callbacks, NULL, options);
mg_set_request_handler(ctx, "/", handler, NULL);

The code examples highlight the different focus areas of the libraries, with cpprestsdk emphasizing modern C++ features and asynchronous programming, while Civetweb provides a simpler C-style API for embedded web server functionality.