Pros of vue-router

• More feature-rich and robust routing solution
• Supports nested routes and route parameters
• Integrates seamlessly with Vue.js ecosystem

Cons of vue-router

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Adds additional complexity to smaller projects
• Requires more setup and configuration

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const routes = {
  '/': Home,
  '/about': About
}

new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

vue-router:

const router = new VueRouter({
  routes: [
    { path: '/', component: Home },
    { path: '/about', component: About }
  ]
})

new Vue({
  router,
  render: h => h(App)
}).$mount('#app')

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example provides a basic routing solution using a simple object to map routes to components. It's lightweight and easy to understand but lacks advanced features.

vue-router offers a more powerful and flexible routing system with support for nested routes, navigation guards, and route parameters. It integrates well with Vue.js and provides a more scalable solution for larger applications.

Pros of webpack

• More comprehensive build setup with advanced features like hot-reloading and code-splitting
• Includes ESLint for code quality and error checking
• Better suited for larger, production-ready applications

Cons of webpack

• More complex configuration and setup process
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Potentially overkill for small, simple projects

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const routes = {
  '/': Home,
  '/about': About
}

new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

webpack:

import Vue from 'vue'
import Router from 'vue-router'

Vue.use(Router)

export default new Router({
  routes: [
    {
      path: '/',
      name: 'Home',
      component: Home
    },
    {
      path: '/about',
      name: 'About',
      component: About
    }
  ]
})

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example uses a basic object for routing, while webpack utilizes vue-router for more robust routing capabilities. The webpack template provides a more structured and scalable approach to routing, which is beneficial for larger applications.

Pros of vue-cli

• Provides a full-featured development environment with built-in tools and configurations
• Offers a wide range of official and community-maintained plugins for easy project customization
• Supports modern web development practices like hot-reloading and code-splitting out of the box

Cons of vue-cli

• May be overkill for simple projects or learning purposes
• Requires additional setup and configuration compared to a basic Vue.js application
• Can be more challenging for beginners to understand the underlying structure

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const app = new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

vue-cli (generated project):

import Vue from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'
import router from './router'
import store from './store'

Vue.config.productionTip = false

new Vue({
  router,
  store,
  render: h => h(App)
}).$mount('#app')

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example demonstrates a basic routing implementation, while vue-cli provides a more structured approach with separate router and store modules. Vue CLI offers a more scalable and maintainable project structure for larger applications, but may be more complex for simple use cases.

Pros of Nuxt

• Full-featured framework with built-in routing, state management, and server-side rendering
• Automatic code splitting and optimized performance out of the box
• Rich ecosystem with extensive plugins and modules

Cons of Nuxt

• Steeper learning curve due to additional concepts and conventions
• Potentially overkill for simple applications or prototypes
• Less flexibility in custom routing configurations

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const routes = {
  '/': Home,
  '/about': About
}

new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

Nuxt:

// pages/index.vue
export default {
  name: 'HomePage'
}

// pages/about.vue
export default {
  name: 'AboutPage'
}

// Routing is automatically handled based on file structure

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example demonstrates a basic routing implementation using Vue.js, while Nuxt provides a more structured approach with file-based routing. Nuxt simplifies the routing process by automatically generating routes based on the file structure in the pages directory, eliminating the need for manual route configuration in most cases.

Pros of Quasar

• Comprehensive UI framework with a large set of pre-built components
• Cross-platform development support (web, mobile, and desktop)
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of Quasar

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Potentially larger bundle size for simple applications
• More opinionated structure, which may limit flexibility for some projects

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const routes = {
  '/': Home,
  '/about': About
}

new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

Quasar:

const routes = [
  {
    path: '/',
    component: () => import('layouts/MainLayout.vue'),
    children: [
      { path: '', component: () => import('pages/Index.vue') },
      { path: 'about', component: () => import('pages/About.vue') }
    ]
  }
]

export default routes

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example demonstrates a basic routing setup using Vue.js, while Quasar uses Vue Router with a more structured approach, including layout components and lazy-loading for route components.

Pros of VuePress

• Built-in static site generation capabilities
• Optimized for technical documentation with features like automatic sidebar generation
• Integrated search functionality out of the box

Cons of VuePress

• More complex setup compared to the simple routing example
• Potentially overkill for small projects or simple single-page applications
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to static site generators

Code Comparison

vue-2.0-simple-routing-example:

const routes = {
  '/': Home,
  '/about': About
}

new Vue({
  el: '#app',
  data: {
    currentRoute: window.location.pathname
  },
  computed: {
    ViewComponent () {
      return routes[this.currentRoute] || NotFound
    }
  },
  render (h) { return h(this.ViewComponent) }
})

VuePress:

module.exports = {
  title: 'Hello VuePress',
  description: 'Just playing around',
  themeConfig: {
    sidebar: [
      '/',
      '/about/'
    ]
  }
}

The vue-2.0-simple-routing-example demonstrates a basic client-side routing implementation, while VuePress uses a configuration-based approach for generating static sites with built-in routing and theming capabilities.