Pros of Apollo Server

• Integrated Tooling: Apollo Server comes with built-in support for features like GraphQL Playground, a powerful GraphQL IDE, and GraphQL Subscriptions, making it easier to develop and test GraphQL APIs.
• Scalability: Apollo Server is designed to be highly scalable, with features like caching, batching, and federation that help handle large amounts of data and traffic.
• Ecosystem Integration: Apollo Server integrates well with other popular technologies in the JavaScript ecosystem, such as Express, Koa, and Fastify, making it easier to integrate into existing projects.

Cons of Apollo Server

• Complexity: Apollo Server can be more complex to set up and configure compared to express-graphql, especially for simpler use cases.
• Performance Overhead: The additional features and tooling provided by Apollo Server may come with a slight performance overhead compared to a more lightweight solution like express-graphql.

Code Comparison

Express-GraphQL:

const express = require('express');
const graphqlHTTP = require('express-graphql');
const schema = require('./schema');

const app = express();

app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema,
  graphiql: true,
}));

app.listen(3000, () => {
  console.log('GraphQL server running on port 3000');
});

Apollo Server:

const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server-express');
const express = require('express');

const typeDefs = gql`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`;

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    hello: () => 'Hello, world!',
  },
};

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });

const app = express();
server.applyMiddleware({ app });

app.listen({ port: 3000 }, () =>
  console.log(`🚀 Server ready at http://localhost:3000${server.graphqlPath}`)
);

Pros of graphql-js

• graphql-js is a standalone library, allowing for more flexibility in integrating it into different environments and frameworks.
• graphql-js has a more extensive set of features and utilities, such as introspection, schema validation, and execution.
• graphql-js is more actively maintained and has a larger community, with more contributors and a wider range of resources available.

Cons of graphql-js

• graphql-js requires more manual setup and configuration compared to express-graphql, which provides a more opinionated and easier-to-use solution.
• graphql-js may have a steeper learning curve for developers who are new to GraphQL, as it requires a deeper understanding of the core concepts.

Code Comparison

graphql-js:

const { graphql, buildSchema } = require('graphql');

const schema = buildSchema(`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`);

const root = { hello: () => 'Hello world!' };

graphql(schema, '{ hello }', root).then((response) => {
  console.log(response.data);
});

express-graphql:

const express = require('express');
const graphqlHTTP = require('express-graphql');

const schema = buildSchema(`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`);

const root = { hello: () => 'Hello world!' };

const app = express();
app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema: schema,
  rootValue: root,
  graphiql: true,
}));

app.listen(4000, () => console.log('Now browse to localhost:4000/graphql'));

Pros of Awesome GraphQL

• Comprehensive list of GraphQL resources, including libraries, tools, and tutorials, making it a valuable resource for developers.
• Regularly updated with new additions, ensuring the information remains current.
• Organized into different categories, making it easy to find relevant resources.

Cons of Awesome GraphQL

• Not a standalone project like express-graphql, so it doesn't provide any direct functionality.
• The repository is primarily a curated list, so it doesn't offer any code examples or implementation details.
• The maintenance of the repository relies on community contributions, which can lead to inconsistencies or outdated information.

Code Comparison

// express-graphql
const express = require('express');
const graphqlHTTP = require('express-graphql');
const schema = require('./schema');

const app = express();
app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema,
  graphiql: true,
}));

app.listen(4000);
console.log('Running a GraphQL API server at http://localhost:4000/graphql');

// Awesome GraphQL
# GraphQL
- [GraphQL](https://graphql.org/) - A query language for APIs and a runtime for fulfilling those queries with your existing data.
- [GraphQL Specification](https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec) - The GraphQL Specification.
- [GraphQL Ecosystem](https://graphql.org/ecosystem/) - A list of GraphQL libraries, tools, and more.

Pros of graphql-go/graphql

• Performance: graphql-go/graphql is written in Go, which is known for its performance and efficiency, making it a suitable choice for high-traffic applications.
• Simplicity: The library provides a straightforward and easy-to-use API, making it accessible for developers who are new to GraphQL.
• Flexibility: graphql-go/graphql offers a flexible and extensible design, allowing developers to customize and extend the library to fit their specific needs.

Cons of graphql-go/graphql

• Ecosystem: The GraphQL ecosystem in Go is not as mature as the one in JavaScript, which may limit the availability of third-party tools and libraries.
• Learning Curve: Developers who are more familiar with JavaScript and the Express ecosystem may find the transition to Go and the graphql-go/graphql library more challenging.
• Tooling: The tooling and development experience around graphql-go/graphql may not be as polished as the one for graphql/express-graphql, which has a larger community and more established tooling.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief code comparison between graphql/express-graphql and graphql-go/graphql:

graphql/express-graphql:

const express = require('express');
const { graphqlHTTP } = require('express-graphql');
const { buildSchema } = require('graphql');

const schema = buildSchema(`
  type Query {
    hello: String
  }
`);

const root = {
  hello: () => 'Hello, world!',
};

const app = express();
app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema: schema,
  rootValue: root,
  graphiql: true,
}));

app.listen(4000, () => console.log('Running a GraphQL API server at http://localhost:4000/graphql'));

graphql-go/graphql:

package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "net/http"

    "github.com/graphql-go/graphql"
)

func main() {
    fields := graphql.Fields{
        "hello": &graphql.Field{
            Type: graphql.String,
            Resolve: func(p graphql.ResolveParams) (interface{}, error) {
                return "Hello, world!", nil
            },
        },
    }

    rootQuery := graphql.ObjectConfig{Name: "RootQuery", Fields: fields}
    schemaConfig := graphql.SchemaConfig{Query: graphql.NewObject(rootQuery)}
    schema, _ := graphql.NewSchema(schemaConfig)

    http.Handle("/graphql", http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
        result := graphql.Do(graphql.Params{
            Schema:        schema,
            RequestString: r.URL.Query().Get("query"),
        })
        fmt.Fprintf(w, "%+v", result)
    }))

    fmt.Println("Server is running on port 4000")
    http.ListenAndServe(":4000", nil)
}

Pros of Graphene

• Graphene provides a more Pythonic and intuitive API for building GraphQL schemas, compared to the more verbose and lower-level approach of express-graphql.
• Graphene integrates well with various Python ORMs and data sources, making it easier to build GraphQL APIs on top of existing data models.
• Graphene has a rich ecosystem of plugins and extensions, providing additional functionality and flexibility.

Cons of Graphene

• Graphene may have a steeper learning curve for developers who are more familiar with the express-graphql approach.
• The Graphene ecosystem is primarily focused on the Python community, while express-graphql has a larger and more diverse community.

Code Comparison

express-graphql (JavaScript)

const express = require('express');
const graphqlHTTP = require('express-graphql');
const schema = require('./schema');

const app = express();

app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema,
  graphiql: true
}));

app.listen(3000, () => {
  console.log('Server running on port 3000');
});

Graphene (Python)

import graphene

class Query(graphene.ObjectType):
    hello = graphene.String()

    def resolve_hello(self, info):
        return "World"

schema = graphene.Schema(query=Query)

Pros of Hasura GraphQL Engine

• Hasura provides a fully managed GraphQL backend, reducing the need for manual GraphQL server setup and configuration.
• Hasura automatically generates a GraphQL API from a PostgreSQL database, making it easier to expose data to clients.
• Hasura offers built-in features like access control, event triggers, and remote schemas, which can simplify the development process.

Cons of Hasura GraphQL Engine

• Hasura's opinionated approach may not fit all use cases, and it may be less flexible than a custom-built GraphQL server.
• Hasura's pricing model, which is based on the number of active users, may not be suitable for all projects.
• Hasura's reliance on PostgreSQL as the underlying database may be a limitation for projects that require support for other database systems.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief code comparison between express-graphql and graphql-engine:

express-graphql:

const express = require('express');
const graphqlHTTP = require('express-graphql');
const schema = require('./schema');

const app = express();

app.use('/graphql', graphqlHTTP({
  schema: schema,
  graphiql: true,
}));

app.listen(4000, () => {
  console.log('GraphQL server running on http://localhost:4000/graphql');
});

graphql-engine:

version: 2
endpoint: http://localhost:8080/v1/graphql
metadata_directory: metadata

The express-graphql code sets up a GraphQL server using the express-graphql middleware, while the graphql-engine code is a configuration file that defines the GraphQL server's endpoint and metadata directory.