Pros of shadowsocks-rust

• Written in Rust, offering better memory safety and performance
• Lightweight and focused solely on the Shadowsocks protocol
• Easier to set up and configure for basic proxy needs

Cons of shadowsocks-rust

• Limited feature set compared to v2ray-core's extensive capabilities
• Less flexibility in terms of protocol support and advanced networking options
• Smaller community and ecosystem around the project

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-rust:

let server = ServerConfig::load_from_str(&config_str)?;
let mut service = ServiceContext::new(server);
service.run().await?;

v2ray-core:

config, err := core.LoadConfig("json", configBytes)
if err != nil {
    return nil, newError("failed to read config file").Base(err)
}
server, err := core.New(config)

Both projects implement proxy functionality, but v2ray-core offers a more comprehensive networking solution with support for multiple protocols and advanced features. shadowsocks-rust focuses specifically on the Shadowsocks protocol, providing a simpler and more lightweight option for users who only need this specific functionality.

v2ray-core is written in Go, while shadowsocks-rust leverages the Rust programming language for improved performance and memory safety. This makes shadowsocks-rust potentially more efficient in terms of resource usage, but v2ray-core's broader feature set may be more appealing for users requiring advanced networking capabilities.

Pros of Trojan

• Simpler design and implementation, making it easier to set up and maintain
• Lower resource consumption, potentially better performance on low-end devices
• Harder to detect due to its mimicry of HTTPS traffic

Cons of Trojan

• Less flexible with fewer protocol options compared to V2Ray
• Limited built-in features, requiring additional tools for advanced functionalities
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially slower development and support

Code Comparison

V2Ray (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address  `json:"address"`
    Port    uint16    `json:"port"`
    Users   []*User   `json:"users"`
}

Trojan (C++):

struct Config {
    std::string local_addr;
    uint16_t local_port;
    std::string remote_addr;
    uint16_t remote_port;
    std::string password;
};

Both projects use configuration structures, but V2Ray's approach is more modular and extensible, while Trojan's is simpler and more straightforward. V2Ray supports multiple users, whereas Trojan focuses on a single password-based authentication.

Pros of Xray-core

• Enhanced performance with XTLS protocol support
• More frequent updates and active development
• Additional features like VLESS and Trojan protocols

Cons of Xray-core

• Potentially less stable due to rapid development
• May have compatibility issues with some v2ray clients

Code Comparison

v2ray-core:

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

Xray-core:

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address  `json:"address"`
    Port    uint16    `json:"port"`
    Network *Network  `json:"network"`
    Stream  *StreamConfig `json:"streamSettings"`
}

The main difference in the code structure is the addition of the Stream field in Xray-core's ServerConfig, which allows for more flexible stream settings configuration.

Both projects share similar core functionality, but Xray-core builds upon v2ray-core with additional features and optimizations. While Xray-core offers improved performance and more frequent updates, it may be less stable due to its rapid development cycle. Users should consider their specific needs and priorities when choosing between the two projects.

Pros of trojan-go

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing specifically on the Trojan protocol
• Potentially faster performance due to its specialized nature
• Easier to configure and deploy for users primarily interested in Trojan

Cons of trojan-go

• Less versatile compared to v2ray-core's multi-protocol support
• Smaller community and potentially slower development cycle
• May lack some advanced features available in v2ray-core

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address
    Port    uint16
    Users   []*protocol.User
}

trojan-go (Go):

type ServerConfig struct {
    LocalAddr  string `json:"local_addr"`
    LocalPort  int    `json:"local_port"`
    RemoteAddr string `json:"remote_addr"`
    RemotePort int    `json:"remote_port"`
}

Both projects use Go and have similar configuration structures, but v2ray-core's approach is more modular and extensible, reflecting its multi-protocol nature. trojan-go's configuration is more straightforward, focusing on essential Trojan protocol parameters.

Pros of naiveproxy

• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Better performance in high-latency environments
• More resistant to detection and blocking

Cons of naiveproxy

• Less flexible and customizable than v2ray-core
• Smaller community and fewer third-party tools
• Limited protocol support compared to v2ray-core

Code Comparison

v2ray-core:

type Server struct {
    config *Config
    ohm    outbound.Manager
    router routing.Router
    ihm    inbound.Manager
}

naiveproxy:

class NaiveProxy : public net::ProxyResolver::RequestClient {
 public:
  NaiveProxy(const net::ProxyConfig& proxy_config,
             net::NetworkTrafficAnnotationTag traffic_annotation);
  ~NaiveProxy() override;

The code snippets show that v2ray-core is written in Go and has a more modular structure, while naiveproxy is written in C++ and focuses on integrating with the Chromium network stack.

v2ray-core offers more flexibility with its component-based architecture, allowing for easier customization and extension. naiveproxy, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more streamlined approach, which can be beneficial for users who prioritize ease of use and performance in specific scenarios.

Pros of gost

• Supports a wider range of protocols, including HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS4(A), SOCKS5, and more
• Simpler configuration and setup process
• Lighter resource usage, making it suitable for low-powered devices

Cons of gost

• Less active development and community support compared to v2ray-core
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Limited documentation and tutorials available

Code Comparison

v2ray-core:

type Server struct {
    access     sync.Mutex
    features   []feature.Feature
    featureSet map[feature.Feature][]feature.Feature
}

gost:

type Server struct {
    Listener net.Listener
    Handler  Handler
    Options  *ServerOptions
}

The code snippets show that v2ray-core uses a more complex structure with features and feature sets, while gost has a simpler server structure focusing on listener, handler, and options.