Pros of Preact

• Smaller bundle size (3KB gzipped) compared to AppRun's larger footprint
• Wider adoption and community support, with more resources and third-party libraries available
• Closer API compatibility with React, making it easier for developers familiar with React to transition

Cons of Preact

• Less built-in state management functionality compared to AppRun's integrated state management
• Fewer out-of-the-box features, requiring additional libraries for routing and other common tasks
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to React-like frameworks

Code Comparison

AppRun:

import { app, Component } from 'apprun';

class Hello extends Component {
  state = 'AppRun';
  view = state => <h1>Hello {state}</h1>;
}

Preact:

import { h, Component, render } from 'preact';

class Hello extends Component {
  render() {
    return <h1>Hello {this.props.name}</h1>;
  }
}

Both frameworks use a component-based architecture, but AppRun integrates state management more tightly within the component. Preact follows a more React-like approach, separating state and props. AppRun's syntax is slightly more concise, while Preact's may be more familiar to React developers.

Pros of Hyperapp

• Smaller bundle size, leading to faster load times
• Simpler API with a more focused feature set
• Better performance for small to medium-sized applications

Cons of Hyperapp

• Less flexibility for complex state management
• Smaller ecosystem and community compared to AppRun
• Limited built-in features, requiring more custom implementations

Code Comparison

AppRun:

import { app, Component } from 'apprun';

class Counter extends Component {
  state = 0;
  view = state => <div>{state}</div>;
  update = {
    '+1': state => state + 1,
    '-1': state => state - 1
  };
}

Hyperapp:

import { h, app } from "hyperapp"

const state = { count: 0 }
const actions = {
  up: state => ({ count: state.count + 1 }),
  down: state => ({ count: state.count - 1 })
}
const view = state => h("div", {}, state.count)

Both frameworks offer a simple way to create components and manage state, but AppRun uses a class-based approach while Hyperapp uses a more functional style. Hyperapp's code is slightly more concise, reflecting its minimalist philosophy.

Pros of Inferno

• Higher performance and smaller bundle size compared to React
• More mature project with larger community and ecosystem
• Better browser support, including IE9+

Cons of Inferno

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to virtual DOM concepts
• Less flexibility in component architecture compared to AppRun's event-driven approach
• Fewer built-in state management options

Code Comparison

AppRun:

import { app, Component } from 'apprun';

class Hello extends Component {
  state = 'AppRun';
  view = state => <h1>Hello {state}</h1>;
}

Inferno:

import { render } from 'inferno';

function Hello({ name }) {
  return <h1>Hello {name}</h1>;
}

render(<Hello name="Inferno" />, document.getElementById('app'));

Both frameworks offer a component-based approach, but AppRun's syntax is more concise and includes built-in state management. Inferno's syntax is closer to React, which may be more familiar to some developers.

AppRun's event-driven architecture allows for more flexible component communication, while Inferno focuses on high-performance rendering and virtual DOM diffing. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and performance needs.

Pros of Riot

• Larger community and ecosystem, with more resources and third-party components
• More mature and battle-tested in production environments
• Supports server-side rendering out of the box

Cons of Riot

• Steeper learning curve due to its custom tag syntax and lifecycle methods
• Larger bundle size compared to AppRun's minimal core
• Less flexible state management compared to AppRun's event-driven architecture

Code Comparison

Riot component:

<my-component>
  <h3>{ props.title }</h3>
  <p>{ state.message }</p>
  <script>
    export default {
      onMounted() {
        this.update({ message: 'Hello, Riot!' })
      }
    }
  </script>
</my-component>

AppRun component:

import { app, Component } from 'apprun';

class MyComponent extends Component {
  state = { message: '' };
  view = state => <div>
    <h3>{this.props.title}</h3>
    <p>{state.message}</p>
  </div>;
  update = {
    '#': state => ({ message: 'Hello, AppRun!' })
  };
}

Both frameworks offer component-based architecture, but Riot uses a custom tag syntax while AppRun leverages more standard JavaScript. Riot's approach may be more intuitive for designers, while AppRun's structure might appeal more to developers familiar with modern JavaScript practices.

Pros of Alpine

• Lightweight and minimal, with a smaller footprint than AppRun
• Easy to learn and integrate into existing projects
• More widespread adoption and community support

Cons of Alpine

• Limited to DOM manipulation and lacks full application architecture
• Less suitable for complex, large-scale applications
• Doesn't provide built-in state management capabilities

Code Comparison

Alpine:

<div x-data="{ open: false }">
    <button @click="open = !open">Toggle</button>
    <span x-show="open">Content</span>
</div>

AppRun:

import { app, Component } from 'apprun';

class MyComponent extends Component {
  state = { open: false };
  view = state => <div>
    <button onclick={() => this.run('toggle')}>Toggle</button>
    {state.open && <span>Content</span>}
  </div>;
  update = {
    toggle: state => ({ ...state, open: !state.open })
  };
}

Alpine focuses on enhancing HTML with directives, while AppRun uses a more structured component-based approach with separate state management. Alpine is simpler for small interactions, whereas AppRun provides a full framework for building complex applications.