Pros of Pedestal

• Pedestal provides a more opinionated and structured approach to building web applications, with a focus on modularity and extensibility.
• Pedestal includes built-in support for features like routing, middleware, and dependency injection, which can simplify the development process.
• Pedestal's emphasis on separation of concerns and testability can make it easier to maintain and scale complex web applications.

Cons of Pedestal

• Pedestal has a steeper learning curve compared to Ring, as it introduces more concepts and abstractions.
• Pedestal's opinionated nature may not align with the preferences of all developers, who may prefer a more flexible and minimalistic approach.
• The Pedestal ecosystem is generally smaller and less mature than the Ring ecosystem, which may mean fewer third-party libraries and resources available.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of how to set up a simple web server using Ring and Pedestal:

Ring:

(require '[ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]])
(defn handler [request]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/plain"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})
(run-jetty handler {:port 8080})

Pedestal:

(require '[io.pedestal.http :as http])
(defn hello-world [request]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/plain"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})
(def service-map
  {::http/routes #{["/hello" :get `hello-world]}
   ::http/type   :jetty
   ::http/port   8080})
(http/start (http/create-server service-map))

Pros of Compojure

• Compojure provides a more concise and expressive syntax for defining routes, making it easier to organize and manage complex web applications.
• Compojure's routing system is more flexible and powerful, allowing for advanced features like route parameters, middleware, and nested routes.
• Compojure integrates well with other Clojure libraries and frameworks, making it a popular choice for building Clojure-based web applications.

Cons of Compojure

• Compojure has a steeper learning curve compared to Ring, as it introduces its own routing DSL and conventions.
• Compojure's focus on routing may make it less suitable for building more complex, non-web-based applications, where Ring's more generic approach may be more appropriate.
• Compojure's development and maintenance may be less active compared to the larger and more widely used Ring project.

Code Comparison

Ring:

(defn handler [request]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/html"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})

(def app
  (-> handler
      (wrap-params)
      (wrap-session)
      (wrap-defaults site-defaults)))

Compojure:

(defroutes app-routes
  (GET "/" [] "Hello, World!")
  (POST "/submit" request
    (println (:params request))
    {:status 302, :headers {"Location" "/"}})
  (route/not-found "Page not found"))

(def app
  (-> app-routes
      (wrap-params)
      (wrap-session)
      (wrap-defaults site-defaults)))

Pros of http-kit/http-kit

• Lightweight and fast, making it suitable for high-performance web applications.
• Supports WebSockets, which allows for real-time communication between the client and server.
• Provides a simple and easy-to-use API for handling HTTP requests and responses.

Cons of http-kit/http-kit

• Lacks some of the features and flexibility provided by Ring, such as middleware and a more extensive ecosystem of libraries.
• May require more manual configuration and setup compared to Ring, which has a more established and opinionated approach.
• Has a smaller community and ecosystem compared to Ring, which may limit the availability of third-party libraries and resources.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of how to create a simple HTTP server using Ring and http-kit:

Ring:

(require '[ring.adapter.jetty :refer [run-jetty]])
(require '[ring.middleware.params :refer [wrap-params]])

(defn handler [request]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/plain"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})

(def app
  (-> handler
      (wrap-params)))

(run-jetty app {:port 3000})

http-kit:

(require '[org.httpkit.server :refer [run-server]])

(defn handler [req]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/plain"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})

(run-server handler {:port 3000})

As you can see, the http-kit version is more concise and requires less boilerplate code to set up a simple HTTP server.

Pros of reitit

• Routing Flexibility: reitit provides a more flexible and extensible routing system compared to Ring, allowing for dynamic route definitions and advanced features like path parameters and route hierarchy.
• Performance: reitit is designed for performance, with a focus on fast route matching and efficient request handling.
• Ecosystem Integration: reitit integrates well with other Clojure/ClojureScript libraries and frameworks, making it a versatile choice for building web applications.

Cons of reitit

• Learning Curve: reitit has a steeper learning curve compared to the more established Ring library, which may be a consideration for developers new to the Clojure ecosystem.
• Dependency Management: reitit has a larger set of dependencies compared to Ring, which may be a concern for some projects that prioritize minimizing the dependency footprint.

Code Comparison

Ring (Clojure):

(defn handler [request]
  {:status 200
   :headers {"Content-Type" "text/plain"}
   :body "Hello, World!"})

(def app
  (ring/wrap-defaults handler site-defaults))

reitit (Clojure):

(def app
  (reitit/ring-handler
   (reitit/router
    [["/" {:get {:handler (fn [_] {:status 200, :body "Hello, World!"})}]]),
   {:data {:middleware [wrap-params
                        wrap-keyword-params
                        wrap-json-response]}}))