router

Pros of React Router

• More active development and larger community support
• Offers more advanced features like nested routing and code splitting
• Better integration with React ecosystem and modern web development practices

Cons of React Router

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• More complex API compared to Reach Router's simpler approach
• Requires more boilerplate code for basic routing setups

Code Comparison

React Router:

import { BrowserRouter, Route, Switch } from 'react-router-dom';

<BrowserRouter>
  <Switch>
    <Route path="/" exact component={Home} />
    <Route path="/about" component={About} />
  </Switch>
</BrowserRouter>

Reach Router:

import { Router } from '@reach/router';

<Router>
  <Home path="/" />
  <About path="about" />
</Router>

React Router offers more flexibility and control over routing, while Reach Router provides a simpler, more declarative API. React Router's Switch component allows for exclusive routing, whereas Reach Router handles this automatically. React Router requires explicit path matching, while Reach Router uses a more intuitive approach with implicit matching.

Both libraries have their strengths, but React Router's ongoing development and wider adoption make it a more future-proof choice for many projects, despite its increased complexity.

Pros of wouter

• Lightweight and minimal, with a smaller bundle size
• Simple API that closely resembles React Router
• No dependencies, making it easier to integrate into projects

Cons of wouter

• Less feature-rich compared to Reach Router
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• May require additional configuration for more complex routing scenarios

Code Comparison

wouter:

import { Route, Switch } from "wouter";

<Switch>
  <Route path="/users/:id" component={UserProfile} />
  <Route path="/about" component={About} />
</Switch>

Reach Router:

import { Router } from "@reach/router";

<Router>
  <UserProfile path="/users/:id" />
  <About path="/about" />
</Router>

Both routers offer similar syntax for defining routes, but wouter uses a more familiar Switch component for route matching, while Reach Router uses a single Router component. wouter's approach may be more intuitive for developers coming from React Router, while Reach Router's syntax is slightly more concise.

Pros of Navi

• Supports code splitting and lazy loading out of the box
• Offers a more declarative routing approach with less boilerplate
• Provides built-in TypeScript support

Cons of Navi

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Reach Router
• Less extensive documentation and fewer examples available
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with traditional React routing

Code Comparison

Navi:

<Router routes={routes}>
  <View />
</Router>

Reach Router:

<Router>
  <Home path="/" />
  <About path="/about" />
  <Users path="/users/*" />
</Router>

Navi takes a more centralized approach to route definition, while Reach Router allows for inline route definitions within the JSX. Navi's approach can lead to cleaner component structures but may require more setup initially.

Both routers offer similar core functionality, but Navi's built-in code splitting and declarative nature can be advantageous for larger applications. Reach Router, on the other hand, benefits from wider adoption and more extensive community resources.

Ultimately, the choice between Navi and Reach Router depends on specific project requirements, team familiarity, and desired routing patterns.

Pros of TanStack Router

• Type-safe routing with full TypeScript support
• More flexible and customizable routing options
• Better performance due to its lightweight nature

Cons of TanStack Router

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the concept
• Less mature ecosystem compared to Reach Router
• Requires more setup and configuration

Code Comparison

Reach Router:

import { Router } from "@reach/router"

<Router>
  <Home path="/" />
  <Dashboard path="dashboard" />
</Router>

TanStack Router:

import { RouterProvider, createRouter } from '@tanstack/react-router'

const router = createRouter({
  routes: [
    { path: '/', element: <Home /> },
    { path: '/dashboard', element: <Dashboard /> },
  ],
})

<RouterProvider router={router} />

TanStack Router offers a more programmatic approach to defining routes, while Reach Router uses a declarative JSX syntax. TanStack Router's approach allows for more complex routing scenarios and better type safety, but may require more setup code. Reach Router's syntax is simpler and more intuitive for basic routing needs.

Pros of history

• More lightweight and focused solely on managing browser history
• Provides a lower-level API, offering more flexibility for custom routing solutions
• Better suited for integration with other libraries or frameworks

Cons of history

• Lacks built-in routing functionality, requiring additional implementation
• May require more setup and configuration for complex routing scenarios
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistent implementations across projects

Code Comparison

history:

import { createBrowserHistory } from 'history';

const history = createBrowserHistory();
history.push('/new-path');
history.listen(({ location, action }) => {
  console.log(action, location.pathname, location.state);
});

reach/router:

import { Router, Link } from '@reach/router';

const App = () => (
  <Router>
    <Home path="/" />
    <Dashboard path="dashboard" />
    <Link to="dashboard">Go to Dashboard</Link>
  </Router>
);

Summary

history focuses on managing browser history, providing a flexible foundation for custom routing solutions. reach/router offers a more complete routing package with built-in components and declarative routing. Choose history for lower-level control and integration with other libraries, or reach/router for a more opinionated and feature-rich routing solution out of the box.