Pros of gqlgen

• Code generation approach leads to type-safe, efficient code
• Supports GraphQL schema-first development
• Integrates well with existing Go code and types

Cons of gqlgen

• Steeper learning curve due to code generation concepts
• Requires additional setup and configuration

Code Comparison

gqlgen:

type Query struct {
    Todo TodoResolver
}

func (q *Query) Todo(ctx context.Context, id string) (*Todo, error) {
    // Implementation
}

graphql:

var queryType = graphql.NewObject(graphql.ObjectConfig{
    Name: "Query",
    Fields: graphql.Fields{
        "todo": &graphql.Field{
            Type: todoType,
            Args: graphql.FieldConfigArgument{
                "id": &graphql.ArgumentConfig{Type: graphql.String},
            },
            Resolve: func(p graphql.ResolveParams) (interface{}, error) {
                // Implementation
            },
        },
    },
})

Key Differences

• gqlgen generates Go code from GraphQL schema, while graphql requires manual definition of types and resolvers
• gqlgen provides stronger type safety and better integration with Go's type system
• graphql offers more flexibility in defining schema and resolvers programmatically
• gqlgen has a more opinionated structure, while graphql allows for more customization in implementation

Both libraries are popular choices for implementing GraphQL in Go, with gqlgen being more suited for larger, schema-first projects, and graphql offering more flexibility for smaller or more dynamic implementations.

Pros of Thunder

• Built-in support for real-time subscriptions and live queries
• Automatic batching and caching of database queries for improved performance
• Simplified schema definition using Go structs and tags

Cons of Thunder

• Less mature and less widely adopted compared to graphql
• Limited documentation and community resources
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to GraphQL

Code Comparison

Thunder schema definition:

type User struct {
    ID   graphql.ID `graphql:"id"`
    Name string     `graphql:"name"`
}

schema.Object("User", User{})

graphql schema definition:

var userType = graphql.NewObject(graphql.ObjectConfig{
    Name: "User",
    Fields: graphql.Fields{
        "id":   &graphql.Field{Type: graphql.ID},
        "name": &graphql.Field{Type: graphql.String},
    },
})

Thunder offers a more concise and Go-idiomatic approach to schema definition, using struct tags. graphql requires more verbose configuration using GraphQL-specific types and fields.

Both libraries provide robust GraphQL implementations for Go, but Thunder focuses on performance optimizations and real-time capabilities, while graphql offers a more traditional and widely adopted approach. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of graphql-go

• More type-safe implementation
• Better performance, especially for complex queries
• Supports custom scalar types out of the box

Cons of graphql-go

• Steeper learning curve
• Less flexible schema definition
• Fewer examples and community resources

Code Comparison

graphql:

var schema, _ = graphql.NewSchema(graphql.SchemaConfig{
    Query: graphql.NewObject(graphql.ObjectConfig{
        Name: "Query",
        Fields: graphql.Fields{
            "hello": &graphql.Field{
                Type: graphql.String,
                Resolve: func(p graphql.ResolveParams) (interface{}, error) {
                    return "world", nil
                },
            },
        },
    }),
})

graphql-go:

var Schema = `
    type Query {
        hello: String!
    }
`

type query struct{}

func (q *query) Hello() string {
    return "world"
}

Both libraries offer robust GraphQL implementations for Go, but they differ in their approach. graphql focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while graphql-go prioritizes type safety and performance. The choice between them depends on project requirements and developer preferences.