Pros of evio

• Simpler API and easier to use for basic networking tasks
• Supports both TCP and UDP protocols out of the box
• Includes built-in load balancing functionality

Cons of evio

• Lower performance compared to gnet in high-concurrency scenarios
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Limited built-in features for advanced networking tasks

Code Comparison

evio example:

func main() {
    var events evio.Events
    events.Data = func(c evio.Conn, in []byte) (out []byte, action evio.Action) {
        out = in
        return
    }
    if err := evio.Serve(events, "tcp://localhost:5000"); err != nil {
        panic(err)
    }
}

gnet example:

type echoServer struct { gnet.EventHandler }

func (es *echoServer) React(frame []byte, c gnet.Conn) (out []byte, action gnet.Action) {
    out = frame
    return
}

func main() {
    gnet.Serve(&echoServer{}, "tcp://:9000", gnet.WithMulticore(true))
}

Both libraries offer event-driven networking capabilities, but gnet provides more advanced features and better performance for high-concurrency scenarios. evio has a simpler API and built-in load balancing, making it easier to use for basic tasks. However, gnet is more actively maintained and offers superior performance in demanding environments.

Pros of fasthttp

• Highly optimized for HTTP/1.1, offering superior performance for web applications
• Provides a rich set of utilities for handling HTTP requests and responses
• Well-established and widely used in production environments

Cons of fasthttp

• Limited to HTTP protocol, not suitable for general-purpose networking
• Lacks built-in support for HTTP/2 and WebSockets
• More complex API compared to the standard net/http package

Code Comparison

fasthttp example:

func requestHandler(ctx *fasthttp.RequestCtx) {
    fmt.Fprintf(ctx, "Hello, world!")
}
fasthttp.ListenAndServe(":8080", requestHandler)

gnet example:

type server struct{ gnet.EventHandler }
func (s *server) React(frame []byte, c gnet.Conn) (out []byte, action gnet.Action) {
    return []byte("Hello, world!"), gnet.None
}
gnet.Serve(new(server), "tcp://:9000", gnet.WithMulticore(true))

Key Differences

• fasthttp is specifically designed for HTTP, while gnet is a general-purpose networking framework
• gnet offers event-driven programming model, while fasthttp follows a more traditional request-response pattern
• fasthttp provides higher-level HTTP-specific abstractions, whereas gnet operates at a lower level, giving more control over the networking stack

Pros of nbio

• More flexible API design, allowing for easier customization
• Better support for WebSocket connections out of the box
• Simpler codebase, potentially easier for newcomers to understand

Cons of nbio

• Less mature project with fewer stars and contributors compared to gnet
• May have lower performance in some high-concurrency scenarios
• Less comprehensive documentation and examples

Code Comparison

nbio:

engine, err := nbio.NewEngine(nbio.Config{
    Network: "tcp",
    Addr:    addr,
})
engine.OnData(func(c *nbio.Conn, data []byte) {
    // Handle data
})

gnet:

type echoServer struct {
    *gnet.EventServer
}
func (es *echoServer) React(frame []byte, c gnet.Conn) (out []byte, action gnet.Action) {
    // Handle data
    return frame, gnet.None
}

Both libraries provide efficient networking capabilities for Go applications, but they differ in their API design and focus. nbio offers a more flexible approach with better WebSocket support, while gnet may have an edge in raw performance for certain use cases. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of netpoll

• Designed specifically for RPC scenarios, optimized for high-performance microservices
• Supports both Go and C++ implementations, offering flexibility for different tech stacks
• Provides built-in support for connection multiplexing, enhancing efficiency in handling multiple concurrent requests

Cons of netpoll

• Less mature and less widely adopted compared to gnet
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its focus on RPC and microservices
• Limited documentation and community resources compared to gnet

Code Comparison

netpoll:

listener, _ := netpoll.CreateListener("tcp", ":8888")
eventLoop, _ := netpoll.NewEventLoop(
    handler,
    netpoll.WithOnPrepare(onPrepare),
)
eventLoop.Serve(listener)

gnet:

type echoServer struct {
    *gnet.EventServer
}

func (es *echoServer) React(frame []byte, c gnet.Conn) (out []byte, action gnet.Action) {
    out = frame
    return
}

gnet.Serve(&echoServer{}, "tcp://:9000", gnet.WithMulticore(true))

Both libraries offer high-performance networking capabilities, but netpoll is more focused on RPC scenarios, while gnet provides a more general-purpose networking solution. netpoll's connection multiplexing and support for multiple languages may be advantageous in certain use cases, but gnet's maturity and broader adoption could make it a safer choice for many projects.

Pros of 1m-go-websockets

• Focused specifically on WebSocket performance and scalability
• Demonstrates handling 1 million concurrent WebSocket connections
• Simple and straightforward implementation for learning purposes

Cons of 1m-go-websockets

• Limited to WebSocket functionality, not a general-purpose networking framework
• Less actively maintained compared to gnet
• Fewer features and optimizations for production use

Code Comparison

1m-go-websockets:

func wsHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    conn, err := upgrader.Upgrade(w, r, nil)
    if err != nil {
        log.Println(err)
        return
    }
    // Handle WebSocket connection
}

gnet:

type echoServer struct {
    *gnet.EventServer
}

func (es *echoServer) React(frame []byte, c gnet.Conn) (out []byte, action gnet.Action) {
    out = frame
    return
}

The 1m-go-websockets example focuses on upgrading HTTP connections to WebSockets, while gnet provides a more general-purpose event-driven networking framework. gnet offers greater flexibility for various network protocols and optimizations, making it suitable for a wider range of applications beyond WebSockets.