Pros of shadowsocks-rust

• Higher performance and lower resource usage due to Rust's efficiency
• Better memory safety and fewer potential security vulnerabilities
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of shadowsocks-rust

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Rust
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party plugins compared to Go

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-rust:

use shadowsocks::{
    config::ServerConfig,
    crypto::CipherKind,
    run_server,
};

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let server_config = ServerConfig::new("127.0.0.1:8388", "password", CipherKind::AES_256_GCM);
    run_server(server_config).await?;
    Ok(())
}

shadowsocks-go:

package main

import (
    "github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks-go/shadowsocks"
)

func main() {
    config := &shadowsocks.Config{
        Server:     "127.0.0.1:8388",
        Password:   "password",
        Method:     "aes-256-gcm",
    }
    shadowsocks.RunServer(config)
}

The code comparison shows that both implementations have similar structure and simplicity. However, shadowsocks-rust leverages Rust's async/await syntax and stronger type system, while shadowsocks-go uses a more straightforward approach typical of Go programs.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More versatile with support for multiple protocols and transport layers
• Advanced features like traffic obfuscation and routing capabilities
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of v2ray-core

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features
• May be overkill for users seeking simple proxy functionality

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address
    Port    uint16
    User    []*User
    Network []net.Network
}

shadowsocks-go (Go):

type Config struct {
    Server     interface{}
    ServerPort int
    LocalPort  int
    Password   string
    Method     string
    Timeout    int
}

v2ray-core offers a more complex configuration structure, allowing for multiple users and network types, while shadowsocks-go provides a simpler configuration focused on basic proxy settings. This reflects the difference in complexity and feature sets between the two projects.

v2ray-core is a more comprehensive solution with advanced features, making it suitable for users who need flexibility and powerful traffic management. shadowsocks-go, on the other hand, is simpler and easier to set up, making it a good choice for users who prioritize ease of use and basic proxy functionality.

Pros of Trojan

• Designed to be more resistant to deep packet inspection (DPI) and active probing
• Uses TLS encryption, making traffic appear similar to HTTPS
• Supports multiple users with different passwords on a single server

Cons of Trojan

• Requires a valid domain name and SSL certificate for proper operation
• May have slightly higher latency due to TLS overhead
• Less widespread adoption compared to Shadowsocks

Code Comparison

Trojan (C++):

void Session::start() {
    auto self = shared_from_this();
    in_socket.async_wait(tcp::socket::wait_read, [this, self](const boost::system::error_code &ec) {
        if (ec) {
            destroy();
            return;
        }
        in_async_read();
    });
}

Shadowsocks-go (Go):

func (c *Conn) Write(b []byte) (n int, err error) {
    if c.enc == nil {
        iv := make([]byte, c.info.ivLen)
        if _, err := io.ReadFull(rand.Reader, iv); err != nil {
            return 0, err
        }
        c.enc = c.info.newEncrypter(iv)
        n, err = c.Conn.Write(iv)
    }
    return
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling connections and encryption in each project, reflecting their respective languages and design philosophies.

Pros of kcptun

• Utilizes KCP protocol for improved network performance, especially in high-latency or lossy environments
• Offers more advanced features like FEC (Forward Error Correction) and congestion control
• Provides better throughput and lower latency compared to traditional TCP-based solutions

Cons of kcptun

• Higher CPU and memory usage due to the complexity of the KCP protocol
• May require more configuration and fine-tuning to achieve optimal performance
• Less widespread adoption compared to Shadowsocks, potentially leading to fewer community resources

Code Comparison

kcptun (client-side configuration):

kcpconn, err := kcp.DialWithOptions(remoteAddr, block, dataShards, parityShards)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Shadowsocks-go (client-side configuration):

cipher, err := ss.NewCipher(config.Method, config.Password)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal("Error creating cipher:", err)
}

Both projects are written in Go and serve as network proxy tools. kcptun focuses on optimizing network performance using the KCP protocol, while Shadowsocks-go primarily aims to provide a secure and simple proxy solution. kcptun may offer better performance in certain network conditions but at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage.

Pros of gost

• More comprehensive feature set, supporting multiple protocols beyond just Shadowsocks
• Active development with frequent updates and new features
• Flexible configuration options for various use cases

Cons of gost

• Potentially more complex to set up and configure due to its extensive features
• May have a larger resource footprint compared to the more focused Shadowsocks-go

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks-go (main server setup):

cipher, err := ss.NewCipher(config.Method, config.Password)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal("Error creating cipher:", err)
}
go run(port, cipher.Copy())

gost (main server setup):

chain := gost.NewChain(
    gost.Node{Protocol: "socks5", Transport: "tcp"},
)
s, err := gost.NewServer(chain)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
s.Serve()

Summary

gost offers a more feature-rich and versatile solution for proxy and tunneling needs, supporting multiple protocols and providing extensive configuration options. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potentially higher resource usage. Shadowsocks-go, on the other hand, focuses specifically on the Shadowsocks protocol, offering a simpler and more lightweight solution for those who only need Shadowsocks functionality.