Pros of Substrate

• More comprehensive blockchain development framework
• Supports multiple programming languages
• Offers greater flexibility and customization options

Cons of Substrate

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more resources to set up and maintain

Code Comparison

Ink (Smart Contract):

#[ink::contract]
mod erc20 {
    #[ink(storage)]
    pub struct Erc20 {
        total_supply: Balance,
        balances: ink::storage::Mapping<AccountId, Balance>,
    }
}

Substrate (Runtime Module):

#[frame_support::pallet]
pub mod pallet {
    #[pallet::storage]
    #[pallet::getter(fn total_supply)]
    pub type TotalSupply<T: Config> = StorageValue<_, Balance, ValueQuery>;

    #[pallet::storage]
    #[pallet::getter(fn balances)]
    pub type Balances<T: Config> = StorageMap<_, Blake2_128Concat, T::AccountId, Balance, ValueQuery>;
}

Ink is specifically designed for writing smart contracts on Substrate-based blockchains, while Substrate is a more extensive framework for building entire blockchain networks. Ink offers a simpler, more focused approach to contract development, making it easier for developers familiar with Rust to get started. Substrate, on the other hand, provides a complete set of tools and modules for creating custom blockchains, offering greater flexibility but requiring more in-depth knowledge of blockchain architecture.

Pros of Polkadot

• Comprehensive blockchain framework for building and connecting custom blockchains
• Robust interoperability features for cross-chain communication
• Advanced governance and consensus mechanisms

Cons of Polkadot

• Steeper learning curve due to complex architecture
• Higher resource requirements for running a node
• Less focused on smart contract development compared to Ink

Code Comparison

Ink (Smart Contract Example):

#[ink::contract]
mod erc20 {
    #[ink(storage)]
    pub struct Erc20 {
        total_supply: Balance,
        balances: ink::storage::Mapping<AccountId, Balance>,
    }
    // ... contract implementation
}

Polkadot (Runtime Module Example):

#[frame_support::pallet]
pub mod pallet {
    #[pallet::config]
    pub trait Config: frame_system::Config {
        type Event: From<Event<Self>> + IsType<<Self as frame_system::Config>::Event>;
    }
    // ... module implementation
}

Summary

Polkadot offers a more comprehensive blockchain ecosystem with advanced features for building and connecting custom blockchains. It excels in interoperability and governance but requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve. Ink, on the other hand, focuses specifically on smart contract development for Substrate-based chains, offering a more streamlined experience for contract-centric projects.

Pros of Cosmos SDK

• More mature and widely adopted ecosystem with numerous live projects
• Supports multiple programming languages (Go, Rust, JavaScript)
• Offers built-in interoperability features for cross-chain communication

Cons of Cosmos SDK

• Steeper learning curve due to complex architecture
• Requires more resources to run a full node compared to Substrate-based chains
• Less flexibility in customizing core blockchain components

Code Comparison

Cosmos SDK (Go):

type Keeper struct {
    storeKey sdk.StoreKey
    cdc      codec.BinaryCodec
}

func (k Keeper) SetValue(ctx sdk.Context, key string, value string) {
    store := ctx.KVStore(k.storeKey)
    store.Set([]byte(key), []byte(value))
}

Ink! (Rust):

#[ink(storage)]
pub struct MyContract {
    value: HashMap<String, String>,
}

#[ink(message)]
pub fn set_value(&mut self, key: String, value: String) {
    self.value.insert(key, value);
}

Both examples show basic key-value storage, but Cosmos SDK uses a more traditional approach with a separate Keeper struct, while Ink! integrates storage directly into the contract struct.

Pros of nearcore

• More comprehensive blockchain infrastructure, offering a complete ecosystem for building and deploying decentralized applications
• Higher performance and scalability, designed to handle thousands of transactions per second
• Stronger focus on developer experience with extensive documentation and tooling

Cons of nearcore

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture and ecosystem
• Less flexibility for customizing the core blockchain functionality compared to ink!'s smart contract approach
• Requires more resources to run and maintain a node

Code Comparison

nearcore (Rust):

impl RuntimeUpgradeChecker for NightshadeRuntime {
    fn is_upgrade_required(&self, prev_block_hash: &CryptoHash) -> Result<bool, Error> {
        let epoch_id = self.get_epoch_id_from_prev_block(prev_block_hash)?;
        Ok(self.is_next_block_epoch_start(prev_block_hash)? && self.will_upgrade_in_next_epoch(&epoch_id)?)
    }
}

ink! (Rust):

#[ink(message)]
pub fn transfer(&mut self, to: AccountId, value: Balance) -> Result<()> {
    self.transfer_from_to(self.env().caller(), to, value)
}

Pros of Solana

• Higher transaction throughput and lower fees compared to Ink
• More established ecosystem with a larger developer community
• Native support for parallel transaction processing

Cons of Solana

• More complex programming model due to its unique architecture
• Less accessible for developers familiar with Ethereum-like environments
• Steeper learning curve for newcomers to blockchain development

Code Comparison

Solana (Rust):

#[program]
mod hello_world {
    use solana_program::entrypoint::ProgramResult;
    use solana_program::msg;

    pub fn say_hello(ctx: Context<SayHello>) -> ProgramResult {
        msg!("Hello, world!");
        Ok(())
    }
}

Ink (Rust):

#[ink::contract]
mod hello_world {
    #[ink(message)]
    pub fn say_hello(&self) {
        ink_env::debug_println!("Hello, world!");
    }
}

Both examples show a simple "Hello, world!" program. Solana uses a more verbose syntax with explicit program structure and result handling, while Ink provides a more concise and declarative approach. Solana's code reflects its focus on performance and parallel execution, whereas Ink's syntax is designed for simplicity and ease of use within the Substrate ecosystem.

Pros of Fabric

• Enterprise-grade blockchain framework with modular architecture
• Supports multiple programming languages (Go, Java, JavaScript)
• Robust permissioning and privacy features for business use cases

Cons of Fabric

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires more resources to run and maintain
• Less suitable for simple, public blockchain applications

Code Comparison

Fabric (Go):

func (s *SmartContract) CreateAsset(ctx contractapi.TransactionContextInterface, id string, value int) error {
    asset := Asset{ID: id, Value: value}
    assetJSON, err := json.Marshal(asset)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    return ctx.GetStub().PutState(id, assetJSON)
}

Ink (Rust):

#[ink(message)]
pub fn create_asset(&mut self, id: AccountId, value: u32) {
    let asset = Asset { id, value };
    self.assets.insert(id, asset);
}

Key Differences

• Fabric is a comprehensive blockchain platform, while Ink is a smart contract language for Substrate-based chains
• Fabric supports multiple languages, Ink is Rust-specific
• Fabric offers more built-in enterprise features, Ink focuses on simplicity and WebAssembly compatibility