Pros of Spring Boot

• Extensive ecosystem with a wide range of starter dependencies
• Strong community support and regular updates
• Excellent documentation and learning resources

Cons of Spring Boot

• Can be heavyweight for small projects
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Auto-configuration may lead to "magic" behavior

Code Comparison

Spring Boot:

@SpringBootApplication
public class Application {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        SpringApplication.run(Application.class, args);
    }
}

Ninja Framework:

public class conf.Routes implements ApplicationRoutes {
    @Override
    public void init(Router router) {
        router.GET().route("/").with(ApplicationController::index);
    }
}

Spring Boot offers a more concise setup with its @SpringBootApplication annotation, while Ninja Framework requires explicit route configuration. Spring Boot's approach may be easier for beginners, but Ninja's explicit routing can provide more control and transparency.

Both frameworks aim to simplify Java web development, but Spring Boot has a larger ecosystem and more extensive features. Ninja Framework, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and performance, making it potentially more suitable for smaller projects or developers who prefer a lightweight approach.

Pros of Javalin

• Lightweight and simple, with minimal boilerplate code
• Supports both Kotlin and Java, offering flexibility
• Easy to set up and get started quickly

Cons of Javalin

• Less feature-rich compared to Ninja Framework
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• Limited built-in templating options

Code Comparison

Javalin:

import io.javalin.Javalin;

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Javalin app = Javalin.create().start(7000);
        app.get("/", ctx -> ctx.result("Hello World"));
    }
}

Ninja Framework:

@Singleton
public class HelloWorldController {
    public Result index() {
        return Results.html().render("Hello World");
    }
}

Key Differences

• Javalin focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while Ninja Framework offers a more comprehensive set of features
• Ninja Framework follows a more traditional MVC structure, whereas Javalin adopts a more flexible approach
• Javalin has built-in support for WebSockets and async requests, which may require additional configuration in Ninja Framework

Use Cases

• Javalin: Ideal for small to medium-sized projects, microservices, and rapid prototyping
• Ninja Framework: Better suited for larger, more complex applications that require a full-featured web framework

Pros of Play Framework

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Built-in support for reactive programming and non-blocking I/O
• Extensive documentation and learning resources available

Cons of Play Framework

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to Scala
• Heavier footprint and potentially slower startup times
• More complex configuration and setup process

Code Comparison

Play Framework:

GET     /hello/:name          controllers.Application.hello(name: String)

def hello(name: String) = Action {
  Ok(s"Hello, $name!")
}

Ninja Framework:

@GET
@Path("/hello/{name}")
public Result hello(@PathParam("name") String name) {
    return Results.html().render("Hello, " + name + "!");
}

Summary

Play Framework offers a more comprehensive and feature-rich solution for building web applications, particularly suited for large-scale projects. It excels in reactive programming and provides robust tools for handling concurrent requests. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and a steeper learning curve.

Ninja Framework, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more lightweight approach, making it easier to get started with and potentially more suitable for smaller projects or developers new to web frameworks. It may lack some of the advanced features and extensive ecosystem of Play Framework but offers a more straightforward development experience.

Pros of Micronaut

• Faster startup time and lower memory footprint due to compile-time dependency injection
• Built-in support for cloud-native features and microservices architecture
• Extensive support for reactive programming and non-blocking I/O

Cons of Micronaut

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to reactive programming
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to more established frameworks
• Limited support for traditional server-side rendering of web pages

Code Comparison

Micronaut controller:

@Controller("/hello")
public class HelloController {
    @Get("/{name}")
    public String hello(String name) {
        return "Hello, " + name + "!";
    }
}

Ninja controller:

public class HelloController {
    public Result hello(@PathParam("name") String name) {
        return Results.html().render("name", name);
    }
}

Both frameworks offer concise syntax for defining controllers and routes. Micronaut uses annotations for HTTP method and path mapping, while Ninja relies on method naming conventions and separate route configuration. Micronaut's approach is more explicit and self-contained, while Ninja's may be more familiar to developers coming from other Java web frameworks.