Pros of Telegraf

• Larger community and ecosystem with more plugins and middleware
• More mature project with longer development history
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of Telegraf

• Slightly more complex API compared to grammY
• Less focus on TypeScript, though still supported
• Larger bundle size

Code Comparison

Telegraf:

const { Telegraf } = require('telegraf');
const bot = new Telegraf(process.env.BOT_TOKEN);
bot.command('start', (ctx) => ctx.reply('Welcome!'));
bot.on('text', (ctx) => ctx.reply('You said: ' + ctx.message.text));
bot.launch();

grammY:

import { Bot } from "grammy";
const bot = new Bot(process.env.BOT_TOKEN);
bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Welcome!"));
bot.on("message:text", (ctx) => ctx.reply(`You said: ${ctx.message.text}`));
bot.start();

Both frameworks offer similar functionality for creating Telegram bots. Telegraf has a more established ecosystem, while grammY focuses on TypeScript support and a simpler API. The code examples show that both frameworks have similar syntax for basic bot operations, with grammY using more modern JavaScript features and TypeScript by default.

Pros of node-telegram-bot-api

• Mature and well-established library with a large user base
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Supports a wide range of Telegram Bot API features

Cons of node-telegram-bot-api

• Less type-safe compared to grammY's TypeScript-first approach
• May require more boilerplate code for common tasks
• Lacks some modern features and optimizations present in grammY

Code Comparison

node-telegram-bot-api:

const TelegramBot = require('node-telegram-bot-api');
const bot = new TelegramBot(token, {polling: true});

bot.on('message', (msg) => {
  bot.sendMessage(msg.chat.id, 'Hello!');
});

grammY:

import { Bot } from "grammy";
const bot = new Bot(token);

bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Hello!"));
bot.start();

The code comparison shows that grammY offers a more concise and type-safe approach to bot development. It uses modern ES6+ syntax and provides built-in methods for common commands, while node-telegram-bot-api requires more manual setup and event handling.

Both libraries are capable of creating functional Telegram bots, but grammY's focus on TypeScript and modern JavaScript features may appeal to developers looking for a more streamlined and type-safe experience. node-telegram-bot-api, on the other hand, offers a tried-and-tested solution with extensive community support and documentation.

Pros of python-telegram-bot

• Mature and well-established library with a large community
• Comprehensive documentation and extensive examples
• Supports both synchronous and asynchronous programming

Cons of python-telegram-bot

• Larger codebase and potentially steeper learning curve
• May have slower performance compared to grammY's TypeScript implementation
• Less focus on modern features like webhooks and inline queries

Code Comparison

python-telegram-bot:

from telegram.ext import Updater, CommandHandler

def start(update, context):
    context.bot.send_message(chat_id=update.effective_chat.id, text="Hello!")

updater = Updater(token='YOUR_TOKEN', use_context=True)
updater.dispatcher.add_handler(CommandHandler('start', start))
updater.start_polling()

grammY:

import { Bot } from "grammy";

const bot = new Bot("YOUR_TOKEN");

bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Hello!"));

bot.start();

Both libraries offer similar functionality, but grammY's TypeScript implementation provides a more concise and modern approach. python-telegram-bot offers more flexibility with its support for both synchronous and asynchronous programming, while grammY focuses on a streamlined, performance-oriented design. The choice between the two depends on the developer's preferred language and specific project requirements.

Pros of aiogram

• Written in Python, which may be more familiar to some developers
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Built-in support for asyncio, allowing for efficient handling of multiple updates

Cons of aiogram

• Slightly more verbose syntax compared to grammY
• Less type safety than TypeScript-based grammY
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to asyncio

Code Comparison

aiogram:

from aiogram import Bot, Dispatcher, types

bot = Bot(token="YOUR_BOT_TOKEN")
dp = Dispatcher(bot)

@dp.message_handler(commands=['start'])
async def send_welcome(message: types.Message):
    await message.reply("Welcome!")

grammY:

import { Bot } from "grammy";

const bot = new Bot("YOUR_BOT_TOKEN");

bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Welcome!"));

bot.start();

Both frameworks offer similar functionality, but grammY's syntax is more concise. aiogram requires explicit handling of asynchronous operations, while grammY abstracts this away. grammY also benefits from TypeScript's type checking, potentially reducing runtime errors. However, aiogram's Python-based approach may be more accessible to developers already familiar with the language and its ecosystem.

Pros of td

• Native C++ implementation, offering high performance and low-level control
• Comprehensive support for all Telegram API features
• Cross-platform compatibility, including mobile platforms

Cons of td

• Steeper learning curve due to C++ complexity
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to grammY
• Less beginner-friendly documentation

Code Comparison

td (C++):

auto client = td::Client::create();
client->send({td_api::make_object<td_api::setAuthenticationPhoneNumber>
    (phone_number, nullptr)});

grammY (TypeScript):

const bot = new Bot(process.env.BOT_TOKEN);
bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Hello!"));
bot.start();

Key Differences

• td provides a lower-level API, while grammY offers a higher-level abstraction
• grammY is specifically designed for building Telegram bots, while td is a more general-purpose Telegram client library
• td requires compilation and linking, whereas grammY can be easily installed via npm and run with Node.js

Use Cases

• td: Complex applications requiring full Telegram API access and performance optimization
• grammY: Rapid development of Telegram bots with a focus on simplicity and ease of use

Pros of telegram-bot-api

• Written in Go, offering high performance and concurrency
• Lightweight and efficient, suitable for resource-constrained environments
• Provides a low-level API, giving developers more control over bot interactions

Cons of telegram-bot-api

• Less abstraction and higher-level features compared to grammY
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer built-in utilities
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Go or low-level bot development

Code Comparison

telegram-bot-api:

bot, err := tgbotapi.NewBotAPI("YOUR_TOKEN")
u := tgbotapi.NewUpdate(0)
u.Timeout = 60
updates := bot.GetUpdatesChan(u)

for update := range updates {
    // Handle update
}

grammY:

const bot = new Bot("YOUR_TOKEN");

bot.command("start", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Hello!"));
bot.on("message", (ctx) => ctx.reply("Got your message!"));

bot.start();

The telegram-bot-api example shows a more low-level approach, requiring manual update handling. grammY provides a higher-level abstraction with built-in command and event handling, simplifying bot development for many use cases.