preact

Pros of React

• Larger ecosystem and community support
• More comprehensive documentation and learning resources
• Better tooling and developer experience with Create React App

Cons of React

• Larger bundle size, which can impact performance
• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• More complex API and lifecycle methods

Code Comparison

React:

import React from 'react';

function App() {
  return <h1>Hello, World!</h1>;
}

Preact:

import { h } from 'preact';

function App() {
  return <h1>Hello, World!</h1>;
}

The syntax is very similar, with the main difference being the import statement. React requires importing the React object, while Preact uses a named import for the h function.

Both React and Preact are popular choices for building user interfaces, with React being more widely adopted and feature-rich, while Preact focuses on a smaller footprint and faster performance. The choice between them often depends on project requirements, team expertise, and performance considerations.

Pros of Vue

• More comprehensive ecosystem with official router, state management, and CLI tools
• Better documentation and learning resources for beginners
• Larger community and job market

Cons of Vue

• Larger bundle size, which can impact initial load times
• Steeper learning curve due to more concepts and API surface area
• Less suitable for extremely performance-critical applications

Code Comparison

Vue:

<template>
  <div>{{ message }}</div>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  data() {
    return {
      message: 'Hello Vue!'
    }
  }
}
</script>

Preact:

import { h, Component } from 'preact';

class App extends Component {
  render() {
    return <div>Hello Preact!</div>;
  }
}

Vue uses a template-based approach with separate script and template sections, while Preact uses JSX for a more React-like syntax. Vue's component structure is more verbose but provides clear separation of concerns. Preact's approach is more concise and familiar to React developers.

Both frameworks offer reactive components and efficient rendering, but Preact's smaller size and closer alignment with standard DOM APIs can lead to better performance in some scenarios. Vue's additional features and tooling make it more suitable for larger applications, while Preact excels in lightweight and performance-critical projects.

Pros of Angular

• Comprehensive framework with built-in tools for routing, forms, and HTTP requests
• Powerful dependency injection system for better modularity and testability
• TypeScript support out of the box, providing strong typing and improved tooling

Cons of Angular

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and size
• Larger bundle size, which can impact initial load times
• More opinionated structure, potentially limiting flexibility in some cases

Code Comparison

Angular:

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  template: '<h1>{{title}}</h1>'
})
export class AppComponent {
  title = 'Hello, Angular!';
}

Preact:

import { h, render } from 'preact';

const App = () => <h1>Hello, Preact!</h1>;
render(<App />, document.body);

Angular provides a more structured approach with decorators and TypeScript, while Preact offers a simpler, lightweight solution closer to vanilla JavaScript. Angular's component definition includes metadata, whereas Preact's functional component is more concise. Both achieve similar results, but Angular's approach is more verbose and feature-rich, while Preact focuses on simplicity and small bundle size.

Pros of Svelte

• Smaller bundle sizes due to compile-time optimization
• More intuitive syntax with less boilerplate code
• Built-in state management and animation capabilities

Cons of Svelte

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Preact
• Less suitable for incremental adoption in existing projects
• Requires a build step, which can complicate development setup

Code Comparison

Svelte component:

<script>
  let count = 0;
  const increment = () => count += 1;
</script>

<button on:click={increment}>
  Clicks: {count}
</button>

Preact component:

import { useState } from 'preact/hooks';

export default function Counter() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
  const increment = () => setCount(count + 1);
  return <button onClick={increment}>Clicks: {count}</button>;
}

Both Svelte and Preact are lightweight alternatives to React, but they take different approaches. Svelte compiles your code to efficient JavaScript at build time, while Preact aims to be a smaller, faster React-like library. Svelte's syntax is often more concise, but Preact offers better compatibility with the React ecosystem. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team familiarity, and performance needs.

Pros of Solid

• Better performance due to fine-grained reactivity
• No virtual DOM, resulting in faster updates and less memory usage
• More flexible and powerful reactive primitives

Cons of Solid

• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to Preact
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with React-like libraries
• Less mature, with potential for more frequent breaking changes

Code Comparison

Preact:

import { h, render } from 'preact';

function App() {
  return <h1>Hello, World!</h1>;
}

render(<App />, document.body);

Solid:

import { render } from 'solid-js/web';

function App() {
  return <h1>Hello, World!</h1>;
}

render(() => <App />, document.body);

Both Preact and Solid aim to provide lightweight alternatives to React, but they take different approaches. Preact focuses on maintaining React-like API and compatibility, while Solid introduces a new reactive system for better performance. Solid's fine-grained reactivity can lead to more efficient updates, but it may require developers to learn new concepts. Preact, on the other hand, offers a more familiar experience for React developers and has a larger ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, performance needs, and team expertise.

Pros of Inferno

• Faster rendering performance, especially for large and complex applications
• More flexible architecture, allowing for easier integration with existing projects
• Better support for isomorphic/universal JavaScript applications

Cons of Inferno

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Preact
• Less direct compatibility with React libraries and components
• Steeper learning curve for developers coming from React

Code Comparison

Inferno:

import { render } from 'inferno';

function MyComponent({ name }) {
  return <div>Hello, {name}!</div>;
}

render(<MyComponent name="World" />, document.getElementById('app'));

Preact:

import { render } from 'preact';

function MyComponent({ name }) {
  return <div>Hello, {name}!</div>;
}

render(<MyComponent name="World" />, document.getElementById('app'));

Both Inferno and Preact aim to provide lightweight alternatives to React, with similar syntax and APIs. The code examples above demonstrate the similarity in basic component creation and rendering. The main differences lie in their internal implementations, performance optimizations, and ecosystem support.

Inferno focuses on high-performance rendering and flexibility, making it suitable for complex applications and integration with existing projects. Preact, on the other hand, prioritizes React compatibility and a smaller learning curve, making it an easier choice for developers already familiar with React.