Pros of Express

• Lightweight and minimalist, allowing for greater flexibility and customization
• Extensive ecosystem with a wide range of middleware and plugins
• Simpler learning curve, making it easier for beginners to get started

Cons of Express

• Less opinionated, requiring more setup and configuration for complex applications
• Lacks built-in features for input validation and authentication, often requiring additional libraries

Code Comparison

Express:

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

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

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

Hapi:

const Hapi = require('@hapi/hapi');

const init = async () => {
  const server = Hapi.server({ port: 3000 });
  server.route({
    method: 'GET',
    path: '/',
    handler: (request, h) => 'Hello World!'
  });
  await server.start();
  console.log('Server running on port 3000');
};

init();

Key Differences

• Express uses middleware for request processing, while Hapi uses plugins
• Hapi provides built-in input validation and authentication features
• Express offers more flexibility in routing, while Hapi has a more structured approach
• Hapi focuses on configuration over code, whereas Express is more code-centric

Both frameworks are popular choices for Node.js applications, with Express being more widely adopted due to its simplicity and flexibility, while Hapi offers more built-in features and a more opinionated structure.

Pros of Koa

• Lightweight and minimalist, allowing for greater flexibility and customization
• Uses modern JavaScript features like async/await for cleaner, more readable code
• Smaller learning curve due to its simplicity and straightforward API

Cons of Koa

• Requires additional middleware for many common functionalities that Hapi includes out-of-the-box
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistencies in large projects or teams
• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Hapi

Code Comparison

Koa:

const Koa = require('koa');
const app = new Koa();

app.use(async ctx => {
  ctx.body = 'Hello World';
});

app.listen(3000);

Hapi:

const Hapi = require('@hapi/hapi');

const init = async () => {
  const server = Hapi.server({ port: 3000 });
  server.route({
    method: 'GET',
    path: '/',
    handler: (request, h) => 'Hello World'
  });
  await server.start();
};

init();

Both Koa and Hapi are popular Node.js frameworks, but they cater to different needs. Koa is more suitable for developers who prefer a minimalist approach and want to build their stack from the ground up. Hapi, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive solution out-of-the-box, making it ideal for larger projects that require a structured and opinionated framework.

Pros of Fastify

• Significantly faster performance, especially for JSON serialization
• Lightweight and minimal core with a plugin system for extensibility
• Built-in support for schema validation and serialization

Cons of Fastify

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Hapi
• Less mature and battle-tested in large-scale production environments
• Steeper learning curve for developers coming from Express-like frameworks

Code Comparison

Hapi:

const Hapi = require('@hapi/hapi');

const server = Hapi.server({ port: 3000 });

server.route({
    method: 'GET',
    path: '/',
    handler: (request, h) => 'Hello World!'
});

await server.start();

Fastify:

const fastify = require('fastify')({ logger: true });

fastify.get('/', async (request, reply) => {
    return 'Hello World!'
});

await fastify.listen(3000);

Both Hapi and Fastify are popular Node.js web frameworks, but they have different design philosophies and strengths. Hapi focuses on configuration-driven development and robustness, while Fastify prioritizes performance and developer experience. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and specific use cases.

Pros of Nest

• Built-in support for TypeScript, offering strong typing and better tooling
• Modular architecture with dependency injection, promoting cleaner and more maintainable code
• Extensive ecosystem with built-in support for various features like GraphQL, WebSockets, and microservices

Cons of Nest

• Steeper learning curve due to its opinionated structure and TypeScript focus
• Potentially higher overhead for simple applications compared to Hapi's lightweight approach
• Less flexibility in terms of customization compared to Hapi's plugin-based architecture

Code Comparison

Nest:

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

Hapi:

server.route({
  method: 'GET',
  path: '/cats',
  handler: (request, h) => {
    return 'This action returns all cats';
  }
});

The code comparison shows Nest's decorator-based approach for defining routes and controllers, while Hapi uses a more traditional route configuration object. Nest's approach is more concise and leverages TypeScript features, while Hapi's method is more explicit and JavaScript-friendly.

Pros of Feathers

• Real-time capabilities out of the box with WebSocket support
• Modular architecture with a plugin system for easy extensibility
• Built-in support for multiple databases and ORMs

Cons of Feathers

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to its concepts
• Less mature ecosystem compared to Hapi
• Smaller community and fewer third-party plugins

Code Comparison

Feathers:

const feathers = require('@feathersjs/feathers');
const app = feathers();

app.use('/users', {
  async find() {
    return [{ id: 1, name: 'John' }];
  }
});

app.service('users').find().then(console.log);

Hapi:

const Hapi = require('@hapi/hapi');
const server = Hapi.server({ port: 3000 });

server.route({
  method: 'GET',
  path: '/users',
  handler: () => [{ id: 1, name: 'John' }]
});

server.start();

Both frameworks offer different approaches to building APIs. Feathers focuses on real-time capabilities and database integration, while Hapi provides a more traditional HTTP server setup with a robust plugin system. The choice between them depends on project requirements and developer preferences.