Pros of Yew

• More comprehensive framework for building client-side web apps
• Provides a component-based architecture similar to React
• Offers a rich ecosystem with additional libraries and tools

Cons of Yew

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Potentially larger bundle sizes for smaller applications
• May be overkill for simple web interactions

Code Comparison

Yew example:

use yew::prelude::*;

#[function_component(App)]
fn app() -> Html {
    let counter = use_state(|| 0);
    let onclick = {
        let counter = counter.clone();
        Callback::from(move |_| counter.set(*counter + 1))
    };

    html! {
        <div>
            <button {onclick}>{ "+1" }</button>
            <p>{ *counter }</p>
        </div>
    }
}

Gloo example:

use gloo::events::EventListener;
use wasm_bindgen::JsCast;
use web_sys::{Element, HtmlElement};

let document = web_sys::window().unwrap().document().unwrap();
let button: Element = document.create_element("button").unwrap();
button.set_inner_html("+1");
let p: Element = document.create_element("p").unwrap();
p.set_inner_html("0");

EventListener::new(&button, "click", move |_event| {
    let count: i32 = p.inner_html().parse().unwrap();
    p.set_inner_html(&(count + 1).to_string());
}).forget();

Pros of Seed

• Higher-level framework for building web applications
• Provides a more opinionated structure and architecture
• Includes built-in state management and routing capabilities

Cons of Seed

• Less flexible for low-level DOM manipulation
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Rust and web development
• More limited ecosystem compared to Gloo's broader approach

Code Comparison

Seed example:

#[update]
fn increment(model: &mut Model) {
    model.counter += 1;
}

#[view]
fn view(model: &Model) -> Node<Msg> {
    button![model.counter, ev(Ev::Click, |_| Msg::Increment)]
}

Gloo example:

let button = document.create_element("button")?;
button.set_inner_html(&format!("Count: {}", count));
button.add_event_listener(move |_: Event| {
    count += 1;
    button.set_inner_html(&format!("Count: {}", count));
});

Seed provides a more declarative approach with built-in state management, while Gloo offers lower-level control over DOM manipulation. Seed is better suited for larger applications with complex state management needs, whereas Gloo is more flexible for integrating with existing JavaScript libraries or creating custom components.

Pros of stdweb

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Provides a higher-level abstraction for DOM manipulation
• Offers a wider range of built-in JavaScript bindings

Cons of stdweb

• Less actively maintained compared to gloo
• Larger bundle sizes due to more comprehensive bindings
• May have more overhead for simple use cases

Code Comparison

stdweb example:

use stdweb::web::document;
use stdweb::web::IParentNode;

fn main() {
    let element = document().query_selector("#my-element").unwrap();
    element.set_text_content("Hello from stdweb!");
}

gloo example:

use gloo_utils::document;
use wasm_bindgen::JsCast;

fn main() {
    let element = document().get_element_by_id("my-element").unwrap();
    element.dyn_ref::<web_sys::HtmlElement>().unwrap().set_inner_text("Hello from gloo!");
}

Both stdweb and gloo are Rust libraries for WebAssembly development, providing bindings to web APIs. stdweb offers a more comprehensive set of bindings and a higher-level abstraction, while gloo focuses on a more modular approach with lower-level bindings. gloo is part of the rustwasm organization and is more actively maintained, making it a better choice for new projects. stdweb may be preferred for existing projects or those requiring extensive DOM manipulation.

Pros of wasm-bindgen

• More comprehensive and lower-level bindings for Rust-WASM interop
• Wider adoption and community support
• Supports generating TypeScript definitions

Cons of wasm-bindgen

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• More verbose code for simple use cases
• Requires additional setup and configuration

Code Comparison

wasm-bindgen:

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn greet(name: &str) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

gloo:

use gloo_utils::format::JsValueSerdeExt;

pub fn greet(name: &JsValue) -> JsValue {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name.as_string().unwrap()).into()
}

Summary

wasm-bindgen provides more comprehensive bindings and wider adoption, but can be more complex for simple use cases. gloo offers a higher-level abstraction, making it easier for beginners but potentially limiting for advanced scenarios. wasm-bindgen is better suited for large-scale projects with complex interop requirements, while gloo shines in smaller projects or when rapid development is prioritized. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's familiarity with Rust and WebAssembly concepts.

Pros of wasm-pack

• Focused specifically on packaging and publishing Rust-generated WebAssembly
• Provides a streamlined workflow for creating and managing wasm projects
• Integrates well with npm for easy distribution of wasm modules

Cons of wasm-pack

• More limited in scope compared to gloo's broader ecosystem
• Less flexibility for low-level wasm operations and browser API interactions
• Smaller community and fewer extensions/plugins available

Code Comparison

wasm-pack example:

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn greet(name: &str) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

gloo example:

use gloo_utils::document;

let element = document().create_element("div")?;
element.set_inner_html("Hello, World!");

Summary

wasm-pack is a specialized tool for packaging and publishing Rust-generated WebAssembly, offering a streamlined workflow for wasm projects. It integrates well with npm but has a more limited scope compared to gloo.

gloo, on the other hand, provides a broader ecosystem of tools and utilities for working with WebAssembly and browser APIs. It offers more flexibility for low-level wasm operations and has a larger community, but may require more setup for simple packaging tasks.

Choose wasm-pack for straightforward wasm packaging and publishing, or gloo for more comprehensive wasm development with broader browser integration capabilities.

Pros of Leptos

• Full-featured web framework with reactive state management and server-side rendering
• Integrates well with existing Rust ecosystems and tools
• Offers a more opinionated and structured approach to building web applications

Cons of Leptos

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to reactive programming concepts
• Less flexibility compared to Gloo's low-level approach
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to more established frameworks

Code Comparison

Leptos example:

#[component]
fn Counter(cx: Scope, initial_value: i32) -> impl IntoView {
    let (count, set_count) = create_signal(cx, initial_value);
    view! { cx,
        <button on:click=move |_| set_count.update(|count| *count += 1)>
            "Count: {count}"
        </button>
    }
}

Gloo example (using web-sys):

use gloo_events::EventListener;
use web_sys::{Element, HtmlButtonElement};

let button: HtmlButtonElement = // ... obtain button element
let mut count = 0;
let listener = EventListener::new(&button, "click", move |_event| {
    count += 1;
    button.set_text_content(Some(&format!("Count: {}", count)));
});