Pros of gin

• Lightweight and fast HTTP web framework
• Extensive middleware ecosystem and community support
• Simple and intuitive API for building web applications

Cons of gin

• Focused primarily on routing and middleware, lacking built-in admin features
• Requires additional setup for database integration and user management

Code Comparison

gin:

r := gin.Default()
r.GET("/ping", func(c *gin.Context) {
    c.JSON(200, gin.H{"message": "pong"})
})
r.Run()

go-admin:

e := gin.Default()
var err error
cfg := config.Config{}
err = e.Use(admin.NewAdmin(&cfg))
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal("gin-admin initialize error: ", err)
}

Key Differences

• go-admin provides a complete admin panel solution, while gin is a general-purpose web framework
• go-admin includes built-in user management and role-based access control
• gin offers more flexibility for custom implementations but requires more setup for admin functionality
• go-admin is better suited for rapid development of admin interfaces, while gin excels in building custom web applications

Use Cases

• Choose gin for building custom web applications with full control over the architecture
• Opt for go-admin when rapid development of admin panels with user management is required

Pros of Beego

• More mature and widely adopted framework with a larger community
• Comprehensive feature set including ORM, caching, and logging
• Better documentation and learning resources

Cons of Beego

• Heavier and more complex, potentially overkill for smaller projects
• Less flexible compared to more lightweight alternatives
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the framework

Code Comparison

Beego routing example:

beego.Router("/", &controllers.MainController{})
beego.Router("/api/list", &controllers.APIController{}, "get:List")
beego.Run()

Go-Admin routing example:

r := gin.Default()
r.GET("/", controllers.Index)
r.GET("/api/list", controllers.APIList)
r.Run()

Both frameworks offer routing capabilities, but Beego uses a more structured approach with controller objects, while Go-Admin (based on Gin) uses a more lightweight function-based routing.

Beego provides a full-featured web framework with built-in components, making it suitable for large-scale applications. Go-Admin, on the other hand, is more focused on admin panel generation and management, offering a simpler setup for specific use cases.

Developers should consider project requirements, team expertise, and scalability needs when choosing between these frameworks.

Pros of Echo

• Lightweight and high-performance web framework
• Extensive middleware ecosystem and easy extensibility
• Strong community support and regular updates

Cons of Echo

• Less opinionated, requiring more setup for complex applications
• Fewer built-in admin features compared to Go-Admin

Code Comparison

Echo:

e := echo.New()
e.GET("/", func(c echo.Context) error {
    return c.String(http.StatusOK, "Hello, World!")
})
e.Logger.Fatal(e.Start(":1323"))

Go-Admin:

e := gin.Default()
eng := engine.Default()
if err := eng.AddConfigFromYaml("./config.yaml").
    AddGenerator("dashboard", GetDashboardGenerator).
    Use(e); err != nil {
    panic(err)
}

Summary

Echo is a lightweight, high-performance web framework with excellent middleware support, making it ideal for building APIs and microservices. Go-Admin, on the other hand, is more focused on providing a complete admin panel solution with built-in features for rapid development of admin interfaces.

Echo offers more flexibility and is less opinionated, allowing developers to structure their applications as they see fit. Go-Admin provides a more structured approach with pre-built admin functionalities, which can be advantageous for projects requiring quick setup of administrative interfaces.

The code comparison shows Echo's simplicity in setting up a basic route, while Go-Admin demonstrates its integration with Gin and configuration-based setup for admin panel generation.

Pros of Fiber

• Extremely fast and lightweight web framework
• Easy to use with Express-like API
• Extensive middleware ecosystem

Cons of Fiber

• Less comprehensive admin features out-of-the-box
• Requires more setup for full-fledged admin panels

Code Comparison

Fiber:

app := fiber.New()

app.Get("/", func(c *fiber.Ctx) error {
    return c.SendString("Hello, World!")
})

app.Listen(":3000")

go-admin:

e := gin.Default()
cfg := config.Config{}
gin.SetMode(cfg.Settings.Mode)

go_admin.Init(e, &cfg)
e.Run(cfg.Settings.Address)

Key Differences

• Fiber focuses on high-performance web applications
• go-admin provides a complete admin panel solution
• Fiber offers more flexibility for custom implementations
• go-admin includes built-in user management and permissions

Use Cases

• Fiber: Ideal for building high-performance APIs and microservices
• go-admin: Better suited for quickly setting up admin interfaces and dashboards

Community and Support

• Fiber: Large community, frequent updates, extensive documentation
• go-admin: Smaller community, focused on admin panel use cases

Performance

• Fiber: Known for exceptional speed and low memory footprint
• go-admin: Optimized for admin panel operations, may have higher overhead

Pros of Iris

• More comprehensive web framework with built-in features like websockets, MVC, and dependency injection
• Higher performance and lower memory usage in benchmarks
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Iris

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API and features
• Less focused on admin panel functionality compared to Go-Admin
• Some controversy in the past regarding versioning and licensing practices

Code Comparison

Iris:

app := iris.New()
app.Get("/", func(ctx iris.Context) {
    ctx.JSON(iris.Map{"message": "Hello, World!"})
})
app.Listen(":8080")

Go-Admin:

e := gin.Default()
cfg := config.Config{}
ga := initialize.Init(&cfg)
ga.Middleware(e)
e.Run(":8080")

Summary

Iris is a more feature-rich and performance-oriented web framework, while Go-Admin focuses specifically on creating admin panels. Iris offers a wider range of built-in functionalities, making it suitable for various web application needs. Go-Admin, on the other hand, provides a streamlined solution for quickly setting up admin interfaces. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and whether you need a general-purpose web framework or a specialized admin panel solution.

Pros of mux

• Lightweight and focused: mux is a simple, efficient HTTP router and URL matcher
• Highly flexible: Allows for custom middleware and fine-grained route control
• Well-established: Widely used and battle-tested in production environments

Cons of mux

• Limited scope: Doesn't provide a full-featured admin panel or user management system
• Requires more setup: Developers need to implement additional features for a complete admin solution
• Less opinionated: May require more decision-making for project structure and best practices

Code Comparison

mux:

r := mux.NewRouter()
r.HandleFunc("/api/users", GetUsersHandler).Methods("GET")
r.HandleFunc("/api/users/{id}", GetUserHandler).Methods("GET")
http.ListenAndServe(":8080", r)

go-admin:

e := gin.Default()
authMiddleware, err := middleware.AuthInit()
RegisterBaseRouter(e, authMiddleware)
RegisterSystemRouter(e, authMiddleware)
e.Run(":8080")

Summary

mux is a lightweight HTTP router focusing on URL matching and routing, while go-admin is a more comprehensive admin panel solution. mux offers flexibility and simplicity but requires additional work for a complete admin system. go-admin provides a ready-to-use admin panel with built-in features, but may be less flexible for custom routing needs.