hutool

Pros of Fastjson

• Faster JSON parsing and serialization performance
• More extensive JSON-specific features and customization options
• Better support for complex JSON structures and data types

Cons of Fastjson

• Narrower focus on JSON processing compared to Hutool's broader utility offerings
• Less frequent updates and maintenance in recent years
• Some security vulnerabilities have been reported in the past

Code Comparison

Fastjson:

String jsonString = JSON.toJSONString(object);
MyObject myObject = JSON.parseObject(jsonString, MyObject.class);

Hutool:

String jsonString = JSONUtil.toJsonStr(object);
MyObject myObject = JSONUtil.toBean(jsonString, MyObject.class);

Summary

Fastjson excels in JSON processing with superior performance and features, while Hutool offers a broader range of utility functions beyond JSON handling. Fastjson is ideal for projects with heavy JSON requirements, whereas Hutool provides a more comprehensive toolkit for various Java development needs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the balance between specialized JSON capabilities and general-purpose utilities.

Pros of Guava

• More comprehensive and mature library with a wider range of utilities
• Better documentation and extensive JavaDoc
• Strong support from Google and a large community

Cons of Guava

• Larger library size, which may increase application footprint
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API
• Less frequent updates compared to Hutool

Code Comparison

Guava:

List<String> list = Lists.newArrayList("a", "b", "c");
Multimap<String, Integer> multimap = ArrayListMultimap.create();
Optional<String> optional = Optional.of("value");

Hutool:

List<String> list = CollUtil.newArrayList("a", "b", "c");
Dict dict = Dict.create().set("key", "value");
Optional<String> optional = Optional.ofNullable("value");

Summary

Guava is a more established and feature-rich library, offering a wide range of utilities backed by Google. It provides excellent documentation but comes with a larger footprint and steeper learning curve. Hutool, on the other hand, is a lighter alternative with more frequent updates and a focus on simplicity. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team familiarity, and performance considerations.

Pros of Commons Lang

• Mature and well-established project with a long history of development and community support
• Extensive documentation and widespread adoption in the Java ecosystem
• Rigorous testing and quality assurance processes as part of the Apache Software Foundation

Cons of Commons Lang

• More focused on core Java language utilities, lacking some of the broader functionality found in Hutool
• Less frequent updates and slower adoption of new Java features compared to Hutool
• Larger dependency size due to its comprehensive nature

Code Comparison

Commons Lang:

String result = StringUtils.capitalize("hello");
boolean isEmpty = StringUtils.isEmpty(myString);
String[] parts = StringUtils.split("a,b,c", ",");

Hutool:

String result = StrUtil.upperFirst("hello");
boolean isEmpty = StrUtil.isEmpty(myString);
String[] parts = StrUtil.split("a,b,c", ",");

Both libraries offer similar functionality for common string operations, but Hutool tends to have more concise method names. Commons Lang provides a wider range of utilities specifically for Java language features, while Hutool covers a broader spectrum of utility functions beyond just language-specific operations.

Pros of Spring Framework

• Comprehensive ecosystem with extensive documentation and community support
• Robust dependency injection and aspect-oriented programming features
• Seamless integration with various Java EE technologies and third-party libraries

Cons of Spring Framework

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and vast feature set
• Heavier footprint and potential performance overhead for smaller applications
• More verbose configuration and setup compared to lightweight alternatives

Code Comparison

Spring Framework:

@RestController
public class HelloController {
    @GetMapping("/hello")
    public String hello() {
        return "Hello, World!";
    }
}

Hutool:

public class HelloServer {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        HttpUtil.createServer(8080)
            .addAction("/hello", (req, res) -> res.write("Hello, World!"))
            .start();
    }
}

Spring Framework offers a more structured and annotation-based approach, while Hutool provides a simpler and more concise method for creating a basic HTTP server. Spring's approach is better suited for larger, enterprise-level applications, whereas Hutool's simplicity makes it ideal for smaller projects or quick prototyping.

Pros of Jackson

• Widely adopted industry standard for JSON processing in Java
• Extensive ecosystem with numerous modules for various data formats
• High performance and flexibility for complex data structures

Cons of Jackson

• Steeper learning curve for advanced features
• Can be overkill for simple JSON operations
• Requires more configuration for custom serialization/deserialization

Code Comparison

Jackson:

ObjectMapper mapper = new ObjectMapper();
MyObject obj = mapper.readValue(jsonString, MyObject.class);
String json = mapper.writeValueAsString(obj);

Hutool:

JSONObject jsonObject = JSONUtil.parseObj(jsonString);
MyObject obj = JSONUtil.toBean(jsonObject, MyObject.class);
String json = JSONUtil.toJsonStr(obj);

Summary

Jackson is a powerful and versatile JSON processing library, while Hutool is a comprehensive utility library that includes JSON handling among many other features. Jackson excels in complex JSON operations and offers more customization options, but Hutool provides a simpler API for basic JSON tasks and includes a wide range of other utility functions. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the need for additional utility functions beyond JSON processing.

Pros of Commons IO

• More mature and widely adopted in the Java ecosystem
• Focused specifically on I/O operations, providing deep functionality
• Backed by the Apache Software Foundation, ensuring long-term support

Cons of Commons IO

• Limited scope compared to Hutool's broader utility offerings
• Less frequent updates and releases
• Larger dependency size for projects only needing basic I/O operations

Code Comparison

Commons IO:

FileUtils.copyFile(srcFile, destFile);
String content = FileUtils.readFileToString(file, "UTF-8");
IOUtils.closeQuietly(inputStream);

Hutool:

FileUtil.copy(srcFile, destFile, true);
String content = FileUtil.readString(file, CharsetUtil.CHARSET_UTF_8);
IoUtil.close(inputStream);

Summary

Commons IO is a specialized library for I/O operations, offering deep functionality and widespread adoption. Hutool, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive utility library that includes I/O operations among many other features. While Commons IO benefits from Apache's backing and maturity, Hutool provides a broader range of utilities in a single package. The choice between them depends on project requirements and whether a focused I/O library or a more general-purpose utility suite is needed.