Pros of Actix-web

• Mature and battle-tested framework with a longer history
• Generally faster performance in benchmarks
• More comprehensive feature set out-of-the-box

Cons of Actix-web

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger codebase and dependencies
• Less idiomatic Rust in some areas due to its actor-based model

Code Comparison

Actix-web:

use actix_web::{web, App, HttpServer, Responder};

async fn hello() -> impl Responder {
    "Hello, World!"
}

#[actix_web::main]
async fn main() -> std::io::Result<()> {
    HttpServer::new(|| {
        App::new().route("/", web::get().to(hello))
    })
    .bind("127.0.0.1:8080")?
    .run()
    .await
}

Axum:

use axum::{routing::get, Router};

async fn hello() -> &'static str {
    "Hello, World!"
}

#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
    let app = Router::new().route("/", get(hello));
    axum::Server::bind(&"0.0.0.0:3000".parse().unwrap())
        .serve(app.into_make_service())
        .await
        .unwrap();
}

Both frameworks offer similar functionality, but Axum's API is generally considered more straightforward and idiomatic Rust. Actix-web provides more features and flexibility out-of-the-box, while Axum focuses on simplicity and composability, leveraging the Tokio ecosystem.

Pros of Warp

• More mature and battle-tested, with a longer history of production use
• Offers a more flexible and composable API design
• Provides built-in WebSocket support out of the box

Cons of Warp

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex API
• Less active development and slower release cycle
• Smaller ecosystem of extensions and middleware

Code Comparison

Warp example:

let hello = warp::path!("hello" / String)
    .map(|name| format!("Hello, {}!", name));

warp::serve(hello).run(([127, 0, 0, 1], 3030)).await;

Axum example:

async fn hello(Path(name): Path<String>) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

let app = Router::new().route("/hello/:name", get(hello));
axum::Server::bind(&"127.0.0.1:3030".parse().unwrap())
    .serve(app.into_make_service())
    .await
    .unwrap();

Both frameworks offer similar functionality, but Axum's routing syntax is more straightforward and closely resembles traditional web frameworks. Warp's approach is more functional and composable, which can be powerful but may require more time to master.

Pros of Rocket

• Simpler syntax and easier to get started for beginners
• Built-in templating engine (Tera) for server-side rendering
• More opinionated, providing a consistent structure for applications

Cons of Rocket

• Less flexible and customizable compared to Axum
• Slower compile times due to heavy use of macros
• Limited async support (though improving in newer versions)

Code Comparison

Rocket:

#[get("/hello/<name>")]
fn hello(name: &str) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

Axum:

async fn hello(Path(name): Path<String>) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

let app = Router::new().route("/hello/:name", get(hello));

Both Rocket and Axum are popular Rust web frameworks, but they have different design philosophies. Rocket aims for simplicity and ease of use, making it a good choice for smaller projects or developers new to Rust. Axum, built on top of Tokio, offers more flexibility and better performance for larger, more complex applications. Rocket's syntax is more declarative, using macros extensively, while Axum takes a more functional approach. The choice between them often depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's preferences.

Pros of Gotham

• More mature project with longer development history
• Extensive middleware ecosystem
• Built-in support for WebSockets

Cons of Gotham

• Less active development and community support
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Fewer integrations with modern Rust async ecosystem

Code Comparison

Gotham route definition:

fn router() -> Router {
    build_simple_router(|route| {
        route.get("/").to(say_hello);
    })
}

Axum route definition:

let app = Router::new()
    .route("/", get(say_hello));

Both Gotham and Axum are web frameworks for Rust, built on top of the Tokio runtime. Gotham has been around longer and offers a more extensive middleware ecosystem, including built-in WebSocket support. However, Axum has gained popularity due to its simpler API, better integration with modern Rust async patterns, and more active development.

Axum's routing syntax is generally more concise and intuitive, especially for developers familiar with other modern web frameworks. Gotham's routing can be more verbose but offers fine-grained control over request handling.

While Gotham has a longer history, Axum's rapid development and growing community support make it an increasingly attractive choice for new Rust web projects. The choice between the two often depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Hyper

• Lower-level HTTP library, offering more fine-grained control
• Highly performant and battle-tested in production environments
• Supports both client and server-side HTTP implementations

Cons of Hyper

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level nature
• Requires more boilerplate code for common web application tasks
• Less opinionated, which can lead to more decision-making for developers

Code Comparison

Axum example:

async fn handler() -> &'static str {
    "Hello, World!"
}

let app = Router::new().route("/", get(handler));

Hyper example:

async fn hello_world(_req: Request<Body>) -> Result<Response<Body>, Infallible> {
    Ok(Response::new(Body::from("Hello, World!")))
}

let make_svc = make_service_fn(|_conn| async {
    Ok::<_, Infallible>(service_fn(hello_world))
});

Summary

Hyper is a lower-level HTTP library offering more control and flexibility, while Axum is a higher-level web framework built on top of Hyper, providing a more ergonomic API for building web applications. Axum simplifies common tasks and reduces boilerplate, making it easier for developers to create web services quickly. However, Hyper's lower-level approach allows for more fine-tuned optimizations and supports both client and server-side implementations.