Pros of Integrant

• Simpler and more flexible design, allowing for easier customization
• Lighter weight with fewer dependencies
• Can be used independently of web frameworks, suitable for various application types

Cons of Integrant

• Less opinionated, requiring more manual configuration
• Fewer built-in integrations and modules compared to Duct
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its flexibility

Code Comparison

Integrant configuration:

(def config
  {:app/db   {:connection-uri "jdbc:sqlite:example.db"}
   :app/handler {:db #ig/ref :app/db}
   :app/server {:handler #ig/ref :app/handler, :port 8080}})

Duct configuration:

(def config
  {:duct.profile/base
   {:duct.core/project-ns 'example
    :duct.server.http/jetty {:port 8080}
    :duct.router/ataraxy
    {:routes {[:get "/"] [:example.handler/index]}}}})

Both Integrant and Duct are Clojure libraries for managing application configuration and lifecycle. Integrant offers more flexibility and simplicity, making it suitable for various application types. Duct, built on top of Integrant, provides a more opinionated structure with additional integrations, making it particularly well-suited for web applications. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Reitit

• More flexible and modular routing system
• Better performance for large applications
• Extensive support for data-driven routing

Cons of Reitit

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less opinionated, requiring more configuration

Code Comparison

Reitit routing example:

(def app
  (ring/ring-handler
    (ring/router
      ["/api" {:middleware [wrap-formats]}
       ["/users" {:get get-users
                  :post create-user}]])))

Duct routing example:

(def routes
  (ataraxy/handler
    {[:get "/api/users"] [:users/list]
     [:post "/api/users"] [:users/create]}))

Summary

Reitit offers a more flexible and performant routing solution, ideal for larger applications with complex routing needs. It provides extensive support for data-driven routing but may have a steeper learning curve.

Duct, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated and structured approach, which can be beneficial for smaller projects or developers new to Clojure web development. It offers a simpler setup process but may be less flexible for complex routing scenarios.

The choice between the two depends on the project's specific requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the routing system.

Pros of Mount

• Lightweight and focused solely on configuration management
• Flexible and can be used with any Clojure application or framework
• Simple API with easy-to-understand concepts (states and sources)

Cons of Mount

• Less opinionated, requiring more manual setup for larger applications
• Lacks built-in support for component lifecycle management
• May require additional libraries for full application structure

Code Comparison

Mount:

(mount/defstate db
  :start (create-connection config)
  :stop (disconnect db))

(mount/start)

Duct:

(defmethod ig/init-key :app/db [_ config]
  (create-connection config))

(defmethod ig/halt-key! :app/db [_ db]
  (disconnect db))

(ig/init config)

Summary

Mount is a lightweight configuration management library, while Duct is a more comprehensive web application framework. Mount offers simplicity and flexibility, making it suitable for various Clojure projects. Duct provides a more structured approach with built-in component lifecycle management and integration with other libraries.

Choose Mount for simpler projects or when you need a flexible configuration solution. Opt for Duct when building larger web applications that benefit from its opinionated structure and ecosystem integration.

Pros of re-frame

• Specifically designed for building single-page applications (SPAs) in ClojureScript
• Provides a clear and opinionated structure for managing application state
• Extensive documentation and a large, active community

Cons of re-frame

• Limited to frontend development, unlike Duct's full-stack capabilities
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to reactive programming concepts
• May be overkill for simple applications or static websites

Code Comparison

re-frame:

(re-frame/reg-event-db
 :initialize-db
 (fn [_ _]
   {:name "re-frame"}))

Duct:

(defmethod ig/init-key :app/routes [_ {:keys [db]}]
  [["/" {:get (fn [_] {:status 200 :body "Hello, Duct!"})}]])

Summary

re-frame excels in frontend development for ClojureScript SPAs, offering robust state management and a structured approach. Duct, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive full-stack solution for Clojure web applications. While re-frame focuses on reactive programming patterns, Duct emphasizes modularity and configuration-driven development. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and whether a full-stack or frontend-specific solution is needed.