Pros of grpc-web

• More mature and widely adopted in the gRPC ecosystem
• Supports bidirectional streaming
• Offers compatibility with existing gRPC backends

Cons of grpc-web

• Requires additional setup and configuration
• Limited browser support without polyfills
• Larger bundle size due to Protocol Buffers dependency

Code Comparison

grpc-web:

const { HelloRequest, HelloReply } = require('./helloworld_pb.js');
const { GreeterClient } = require('./helloworld_grpc_web_pb.js');

const client = new GreeterClient('http://localhost:8080');
const request = new HelloRequest();
request.setName('World');

client.sayHello(request, {}, (err, response) => {
  console.log(response.getMessage());
});

connect-es:

import { createPromiseClient } from "@connectrpc/connect";
import { createGrpcWebTransport } from "@connectrpc/connect-web";
import { GreeterService } from "./gen/helloworld_connect.js";

const transport = createGrpcWebTransport({ baseUrl: "http://localhost:8080" });
const client = createPromiseClient(GreeterService, transport);

const response = await client.sayHello({ name: "World" });
console.log(response.message);

connect-es offers a more streamlined API with less boilerplate code and built-in Promise support. It also has a smaller bundle size and better TypeScript integration. However, grpc-web may be preferred for projects already using gRPC or requiring full compatibility with existing gRPC backends.

Pros of connect-es

• Designed specifically for ECMAScript environments, offering better compatibility with modern JavaScript and TypeScript projects
• Provides a more streamlined API tailored for ES6+ syntax and features
• Potentially smaller bundle size due to focus on ES modules

Cons of connect-es

• May have less comprehensive documentation compared to the main Connect project
• Potentially fewer community contributions and third-party integrations
• Could have a smaller ecosystem of plugins and extensions

Code Comparison

connect-es:

import { createPromiseClient } from "@connectrpc/connect";
import { createGrpcWebTransport } from "@connectrpc/connect-web";
import { ElizaService } from "./gen/eliza_connect";

const transport = createGrpcWebTransport({ baseUrl: "https://demo.connectrpc.com" });
const client = createPromiseClient(ElizaService, transport);

connect:

const { ConnectRouter } = require("@connectrpc/connect");
const { ElizaService } = require("./gen/eliza_connect");

const router = new ConnectRouter();
router.service(ElizaService, {
  // Service implementation
});

Note: The code comparison is approximate, as the exact implementation details may vary between the two repositories.

Pros of Twirp

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing on RPC over HTTP 1.1
• Better suited for microservices and internal communication
• Easier to set up and use for developers new to RPC frameworks

Cons of Twirp

• Limited to Protocol Buffers for serialization
• Lacks built-in support for streaming and bidirectional communication
• Less flexible in terms of transport protocols compared to Connect

Code Comparison

Twirp service definition:

service Haberdasher {
  rpc MakeHat(Size) returns (Hat);
}

Connect service definition:

service Haberdasher {
  rpc MakeHat(MakeHatRequest) returns (MakeHatResponse);
  rpc StreamHats(StreamHatsRequest) returns (stream Hat);
}

The code comparison shows that Connect supports streaming (as seen in the StreamHats method), while Twirp is limited to unary RPC calls.

Connect offers a more feature-rich and flexible approach to RPC, supporting various protocols and serialization formats. It's better suited for complex, large-scale applications with diverse communication needs. Twirp, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more focused solution that excels in microservices architectures and scenarios where lightweight, HTTP-based RPC is sufficient.

Pros of grpc-node

• More mature and widely adopted in the Node.js ecosystem
• Supports bidirectional streaming, which connect-es currently lacks
• Offers native gRPC implementation for potentially better performance

Cons of grpc-node

• Requires protocol buffers for schema definition, adding complexity
• Heavier dependency footprint and more challenging to set up
• Limited browser support, primarily focused on server-side Node.js

Code Comparison

connect-es:

import { createPromiseClient } from "@connectrpc/connect";
import { createGrpcTransport } from "@connectrpc/connect-node";
import { ElizaService } from "./gen/eliza_connect";

const transport = createGrpcTransport({
  httpVersion: "2",
  baseUrl: "https://demo.connectrpc.com",
});
const client = createPromiseClient(ElizaService, transport);

grpc-node:

const grpc = require('@grpc/grpc-js');
const protoLoader = require('@grpc/proto-loader');
const packageDefinition = protoLoader.loadSync('eliza.proto');
const elizaProto = grpc.loadPackageDefinition(packageDefinition).eliza;
const client = new elizaProto.ElizaService('localhost:50051', grpc.credentials.createInsecure());

The code examples demonstrate the client setup process for both libraries. connect-es offers a more straightforward and TypeScript-friendly approach, while grpc-node requires additional steps for protocol buffer loading and service definition.