cpprestsdk

Pros of cpp-httplib

• Lightweight and header-only library, easy to integrate
• Simple and intuitive API for both client and server
• No external dependencies required

Cons of cpp-httplib

• Limited features compared to cpprestsdk's comprehensive functionality
• Less robust for large-scale, enterprise-level applications
• Fewer platform-specific optimizations

Code Comparison

cpp-httplib:

#include <httplib.h>

int main() {
    httplib::Server svr;
    svr.Get("/hi", [](const httplib::Request&, httplib::Response& res) {
        res.set_content("Hello World!", "text/plain");
    });
    svr.listen("localhost", 8080);
}

cpprestsdk:

#include <cpprest/http_listener.h>

int main() {
    web::http::experimental::listener::http_listener listener("http://localhost:8080");
    listener.support(web::http::methods::GET, [](web::http::http_request request) {
        request.reply(web::http::status_codes::OK, "Hello World!");
    });
    listener.open().wait();
}

Both libraries provide simple ways to create HTTP servers, but cpp-httplib's API is more straightforward. However, cpprestsdk offers more advanced features and better support for asynchronous operations, making it more suitable for complex applications.

Pros of json

• Lightweight and header-only library, easy to integrate
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Modern C++ design with intuitive API

Cons of json

• Limited to JSON processing, lacks broader networking capabilities
• May require additional libraries for HTTP requests or WebSocket support

Code Comparison

json:

#include <nlohmann/json.hpp>
using json = nlohmann::json;

json j = {
  {"name", "John"},
  {"age", 30},
  {"city", "New York"}
};
std::string s = j.dump();

cpprestsdk:

#include <cpprest/json.h>
using namespace web;

json::value j;
j["name"] = json::value::string("John");
j["age"] = json::value::number(30);
j["city"] = json::value::string("New York");
std::string s = j.serialize();

Summary

json is a specialized JSON library offering a modern, user-friendly API for JSON manipulation. cpprestsdk provides a more comprehensive set of tools for web and cloud-based applications, including HTTP client/server, JSON, and WebSocket support. Choose json for lightweight JSON processing, and cpprestsdk for broader networking capabilities in C++ applications.

Pros of rapidjson

• Faster parsing and serialization performance
• Lighter memory footprint
• More focused on JSON processing, potentially simpler for JSON-specific tasks

Cons of rapidjson

• Limited to JSON processing, while cpprestsdk offers broader functionality
• Less comprehensive documentation and community support
• Fewer high-level abstractions for complex operations

Code Comparison

rapidjson:

Document d;
d.Parse(json);
std::string name = d["name"].GetString();
int age = d["age"].GetInt();

cpprestsdk:

json::value obj = json::value::parse(json);
std::string name = obj["name"].as_string();
int age = obj["age"].as_integer();

Both libraries provide straightforward JSON parsing, but rapidjson's approach is more low-level and potentially faster, while cpprestsdk offers a more abstracted interface.

rapidjson is ideal for projects primarily focused on high-performance JSON processing, whereas cpprestsdk is better suited for applications requiring a broader range of REST and HTTP functionalities alongside JSON handling.

The choice between these libraries depends on the specific requirements of your project, balancing factors such as performance needs, feature set, and development complexity.

Pros of websocketpp

• Lightweight and focused solely on WebSocket functionality
• Header-only library, simplifying integration into projects
• More flexible and customizable for specific WebSocket needs

Cons of websocketpp

• Lacks the broader feature set of cpprestsdk (e.g., HTTP client/server, JSON parsing)
• May require additional libraries for features like SSL support
• Less active development and community support compared to cpprestsdk

Code Comparison

websocketpp:

#include <websocketpp/config/asio_no_tls.hpp>
#include <websocketpp/server.hpp>

typedef websocketpp::server<websocketpp::config::asio> server;

server echo_server;
echo_server.set_message_handler([](websocketpp::connection_hdl hdl, server::message_ptr msg) {
    // Handle WebSocket message
});

cpprestsdk:

#include <cpprest/ws_client.h>

web::websockets::client::websocket_client client;
client.connect(U("wss://echo.websocket.org")).then([&client]() {
    return client.send(U("Hello, WebSocket!"));
}).then([&client]() {
    return client.receive();
}).then([](web::websockets::client::websocket_incoming_message msg) {
    // Handle WebSocket message
});

Both libraries provide WebSocket functionality, but cpprestsdk offers a more comprehensive set of features for web-related tasks, while websocketpp focuses specifically on WebSocket implementation with greater customization options.

Pros of Asio

• Lightweight and header-only library, making it easy to integrate into projects
• Provides a more low-level, flexible API for network programming
• Supports both synchronous and asynchronous operations

Cons of Asio

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level nature
• Less built-in functionality for higher-level protocols (e.g., HTTP, WebSockets)

Code Comparison

Asio example:

asio::io_context io_context;
asio::ip::tcp::socket socket(io_context);
asio::ip::tcp::resolver resolver(io_context);
asio::async_connect(socket, resolver.resolve("example.com", "80"),
    [](const asio::error_code& ec, const asio::ip::tcp::endpoint&) {
        // Handle connection
    });

C++ REST SDK example:

http_client client(U("http://example.com"));
client.request(methods::GET, U("/api/data"))
    .then([](http_response response) {
        // Handle response
    });

The Asio example demonstrates lower-level socket operations, while the C++ REST SDK example shows a higher-level HTTP request. Asio provides more control over the networking details, while C++ REST SDK offers a more abstracted, user-friendly API for common web operations.

Pros of googletest

• More focused on unit testing, providing a comprehensive framework for C++ testing
• Wider adoption and community support in the C++ ecosystem
• Easier to set up and integrate into existing C++ projects

Cons of googletest

• Limited to testing functionality, unlike cpprestsdk which offers broader features
• May require additional libraries for certain types of tests (e.g., mocking)
• Less suitable for projects requiring REST client/server capabilities

Code Comparison

googletest example:

TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesZeroInput) {
  EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(0), 1);
}

TEST(FactorialTest, HandlesPositiveInput) {
  EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(1), 1);
  EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(2), 2);
  EXPECT_EQ(Factorial(3), 6);
}

cpprestsdk example:

http_client client(U("http://example.com"));
client.request(methods::GET, U("/api/data"))
.then([](http_response response) {
    return response.extract_json();
})
.then([](json::value json) {
    // Process JSON data
});