Pros of v2ray-core

• More versatile with support for multiple protocols and transport layers
• Advanced features like traffic splitting and dynamic routing
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of v2ray-core

• More complex configuration due to its extensive feature set
• Higher resource usage compared to Trojan's lightweight design
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address  `json:"address"`
    Port    uint16    `json:"port"`
    Network *Network  `json:"network"`
    // ... more fields
}

Trojan (C++):

class Config {
public:
    string remote_addr;
    uint16_t remote_port;
    string local_addr;
    uint16_t local_port;
    // ... more fields
};

The code snippets show that v2ray-core uses a more structured approach with nested types, while Trojan opts for a simpler, flat configuration structure. This reflects v2ray-core's more complex feature set and Trojan's focus on simplicity.

v2ray-core offers greater flexibility and features at the cost of complexity, while Trojan provides a more straightforward, lightweight solution. The choice between them depends on specific use cases and user preferences.

Pros of shadowsocks-rust

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Supports multiple ciphers and protocols, providing flexibility
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of shadowsocks-rust

• Less widespread adoption compared to Trojan
• May require more setup and configuration for advanced features
• Lacks some of the built-in obfuscation techniques found in Trojan

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-rust

let server = Server::new(config);
server.run().await?;

Trojan

Service service(config);
service.run();

Both projects aim to provide secure and efficient proxy solutions, but they differ in their implementation and features. shadowsocks-rust leverages Rust's performance benefits and memory safety, while Trojan focuses on simplicity and ease of use. The code snippets demonstrate the basic setup for running a server in each project, with shadowsocks-rust using async/await syntax and Trojan using a more traditional approach.

Ultimately, the choice between these two projects depends on specific requirements, such as performance needs, desired features, and familiarity with the respective programming languages and ecosystems.

Pros of Xray-core

• More comprehensive protocol support, including VLESS, Trojan, and VMess
• Advanced features like XTLS for improved performance and security
• Active development with frequent updates and community contributions

Cons of Xray-core

• Higher complexity, potentially more challenging to set up and configure
• Larger codebase, which may lead to increased resource usage
• Some features may be considered overkill for basic use cases

Code Comparison

Xray-core (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    Inbounds  []InboundDetourConfig `json:"inbounds"`
    Outbounds []OutboundDetourConfig `json:"outbounds"`
    Transport *TransportConfig `json:"transport"`
    Policy    *PolicyConfig `json:"policy"`
}

Trojan (C++):

class Config {
public:
    class SSLConfig {
    public:
        bool verify;
        bool verify_hostname;
        std::string cert;
        std::string key;
    } ssl;
};

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in configuration structures between Xray-core (written in Go) and Trojan (written in C++). Xray-core's configuration appears more modular and extensive, reflecting its broader feature set, while Trojan's configuration is more focused on SSL settings, aligning with its simpler design philosophy.

Pros of trojan-go

• Written in Go, offering better performance and concurrency
• Supports multiple protocols (WebSocket, gRPC, etc.) for better obfuscation
• Includes built-in routing and load balancing features

Cons of trojan-go

• Larger binary size due to Go compilation
• May have slightly higher memory usage compared to C++ implementation
• Some users report occasional stability issues with certain configurations

Code Comparison

trojan:

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_read();
    });
}

trojan-go:

func (c *Client) Run() error {
    for {
        conn, err := c.underlay.AcceptConn()
        if err != nil {
            return err
        }
        go c.handleConn(conn)
    }
}

The code snippets show different approaches to handling connections, with trojan-go utilizing Go's goroutines for concurrent processing.

Pros of naiveproxy

• Built on Chromium's network stack, providing better performance and stability
• Supports HTTPS/2 and QUIC protocols, offering improved speed and security
• More resistant to detection due to its similarity to regular Chrome traffic

Cons of naiveproxy

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Trojan
• Larger resource footprint due to Chromium dependencies
• Less widespread adoption and community support than Trojan

Code comparison

Trojan configuration example:

{
    "run_type": "server",
    "local_addr": "0.0.0.0",
    "local_port": 443,
    "remote_addr": "127.0.0.1",
    "remote_port": 80,
    "password": ["password1"],
    "ssl": {
        "cert": "/path/to/certificate.crt",
        "key": "/path/to/private.key",
        "key_password": "",
        "cipher": "ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384",
        "cipher_tls13": "TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384",
        "prefer_server_cipher": true,
        "alpn": [
            "http/1.1"
        ],
        "reuse_session": true,
        "session_ticket": false,
        "session_timeout": 600,
        "plain_http_response": "",
        "curves": "",
        "dhparam": ""
    }
}

naiveproxy configuration example:

{
  "listen": "http://127.0.0.1:1080",
  "proxy": "https://example.com",
  "concurrency": 1
}