nestjs

Pros of nest

• Official NestJS framework repository with comprehensive documentation
• Larger community and ecosystem with more frequent updates
• Built-in support for a wide range of features and integrations

Cons of nest

• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its extensive feature set
• Potentially more complex setup for simple applications
• Heavier footprint compared to minimal NestJS implementations

Code Comparison

nest:

import { Controller, Get } from '@nestjs/common';

@Controller('cats')
export class CatsController {
  @Get()
  findAll(): string {
    return 'This action returns all cats';
  }
}

golevelup/nestjs:

import { createParamDecorator } from '@nestjs/common';
import { GqlExecutionContext } from '@nestjs/graphql';

export const CurrentUser = createParamDecorator(
  (data, context) => GqlExecutionContext.create(context).getContext().req.user
);

The nest example showcases a basic controller setup, while the golevelup/nestjs example demonstrates a custom decorator for GraphQL context. golevelup/nestjs focuses on providing additional utilities and enhancements to the core NestJS framework, making it a complementary tool rather than a direct alternative.

Pros of routing-controllers

• Framework-agnostic, can be used with Express, Koa, or other Node.js frameworks
• Simpler setup and less boilerplate code for basic routing and controller functionality
• More flexible and customizable decorator-based approach

Cons of routing-controllers

• Less comprehensive ecosystem compared to NestJS
• Fewer built-in features and modules for complex applications
• May require more manual configuration for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

routing-controllers:

@JsonController()
export class UserController {
  @Get("/users")
  getAll() {
    return userRepository.findAll();
  }
}

nestjs:

@Controller('users')
export class UserController {
  @Get()
  findAll() {
    return this.userService.findAll();
  }
}

Both libraries use decorators for defining controllers and routes, but routing-controllers allows for more granular control over HTTP method decorators and response types. NestJS, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated structure with built-in dependency injection and modular architecture.

While routing-controllers offers simplicity and flexibility, NestJS provides a more comprehensive framework with additional features like built-in testing utilities, WebSocket support, and microservices capabilities. The choice between the two depends on the project's complexity and specific requirements.

Pros of Express

• Lightweight and minimalist framework, offering flexibility and simplicity
• Extensive ecosystem with a wide range of middleware and plugins
• Mature and battle-tested, with a large community and extensive documentation

Cons of Express

• Lacks built-in structure, requiring developers to make architectural decisions
• No out-of-the-box TypeScript support, necessitating additional setup
• Limited dependency injection capabilities, making testing more challenging

Code Comparison

Express:

const express = require('express');
const app = express();

app.get('/', (req, res) => {
  res.send('Hello World!');
});

NestJS:

import { Controller, Get } from '@nestjs/common';

@Controller()
export class AppController {
  @Get()
  getHello(): string {
    return 'Hello World!';
  }
}

The Express example demonstrates its simplicity and straightforward approach, while the NestJS example showcases its use of decorators and TypeScript for a more structured and type-safe development experience. NestJS provides a higher level of abstraction and built-in architectural patterns, which can lead to more maintainable and scalable applications, especially for larger projects. However, Express's simplicity and flexibility make it an excellent choice for smaller applications or when developers prefer more control over the project structure.

Pros of Fastify

• Extremely fast performance, often outperforming NestJS in benchmarks
• Lightweight and minimalist design, allowing for greater flexibility
• Built-in support for JSON Schema validation

Cons of Fastify

• Less opinionated structure compared to NestJS's modular architecture
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer out-of-the-box integrations
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Node.js frameworks

Code Comparison

NestJS (golevelup/nestjs):

@Controller('cats')
export class CatsController {
  @Get()
  findAll(): string {
    return 'This action returns all cats';
  }
}

Fastify:

fastify.get('/cats', async (request, reply) => {
  return 'This action returns all cats';
});

The NestJS example showcases its decorators and class-based approach, while Fastify demonstrates its more straightforward, functional style. NestJS provides a more structured, Angular-like syntax, whereas Fastify offers a simpler, Express-like API.

Both frameworks have their strengths: NestJS excels in large, enterprise-grade applications with its robust architecture and dependency injection system, while Fastify shines in high-performance scenarios and microservices where speed and low overhead are crucial.

Pros of Feathers

• Lightweight and flexible framework with a modular architecture
• Strong real-time capabilities out of the box
• Supports multiple databases and ORMs seamlessly

Cons of Feathers

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to NestJS
• Less opinionated, which may lead to inconsistent code structure across projects
• Limited built-in support for complex enterprise-level features

Code Comparison

Feathers service creation:

const createService = require('feathers-memory');

app.use('/messages', createService());

NestJS service creation (using golevelup/nestjs):

@Injectable()
export class MessagesService {
  @InjectRepository(Message)
  private readonly repository: Repository<Message>;
}

Both frameworks offer simple service creation, but NestJS (with golevelup/nestjs) provides more TypeScript-oriented and dependency injection-focused approach, while Feathers emphasizes simplicity and flexibility.

Feathers is ideal for rapid development of real-time applications, especially when working with multiple databases. NestJS, enhanced by golevelup/nestjs, offers a more structured and opinionated approach, making it suitable for larger, enterprise-level applications with complex requirements.

Pros of AdonisJS

• More lightweight and faster performance compared to NestJS
• Simpler learning curve with a Rails-like structure
• Built-in ORM (Lucid) that's tightly integrated with the framework

Cons of AdonisJS

• Smaller community and ecosystem than NestJS
• Less flexibility for complex enterprise applications
• Fewer built-in features for microservices architecture

Code Comparison

AdonisJS route definition:

Route.get('/users', 'UsersController.index')
Route.post('/users', 'UsersController.store')

NestJS route definition:

@Controller('users')
export class UsersController {
  @Get()
  index() {}
  @Post()
  store() {}
}

AdonisJS focuses on convention over configuration, resulting in more concise route definitions. NestJS uses decorators and classes, providing a more explicit and TypeScript-friendly approach.

Both frameworks offer powerful features for building web applications, but they cater to different preferences and project requirements. AdonisJS is ideal for developers who prefer a Rails-like experience and rapid development, while NestJS is better suited for large-scale enterprise applications with complex architectures.