Pros of wasm-pack

• More active development and recent updates
• Larger community and contributor base
• Better documentation and examples

Cons of wasm-pack

• Potentially more complex setup for beginners
• May have more dependencies and larger footprint

Code Comparison

wasm-pack:

use wasm_bindgen::prelude::*;

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

wasm-pack>:

#[no_mangle]
pub extern "C" fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

Summary

wasm-pack is a more mature and widely-used tool for building WebAssembly modules from Rust code. It offers better documentation, a larger community, and more frequent updates. However, it may be slightly more complex for beginners and have a larger footprint.

wasm-pack>, on the other hand, appears to be a simpler alternative with potentially fewer dependencies. It might be easier for beginners to get started with, but it may lack some of the advanced features and community support of wasm-pack.

The code comparison shows that wasm-pack uses the wasm_bindgen crate for easier JavaScript interop, while wasm-pack> uses a more low-level approach with #[no_mangle] and extern "C" attributes.

Pros of wasm-bindgen

• More comprehensive and actively maintained project with broader community support
• Offers direct integration with JavaScript, allowing easier interoperability
• Provides automatic generation of TypeScript definitions for improved type safety

Cons of wasm-bindgen

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features and options
• Requires additional setup and configuration compared to wasm-pack

Code Comparison

wasm-bindgen:

use wasm_bindgen::prelude::*;

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

wasm-pack:

#[no_mangle]
pub extern "C" fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

wasm-bindgen offers a more streamlined approach with its #[wasm_bindgen] attribute, while wasm-pack requires manual export annotations. wasm-bindgen also provides better integration with JavaScript and TypeScript, making it easier to use WebAssembly modules in web projects.

wasm-pack is primarily a build tool that simplifies the process of compiling Rust to WebAssembly and creating npm packages. It can be used in conjunction with wasm-bindgen but doesn't provide the same level of JavaScript interoperability on its own.

In summary, wasm-bindgen is more feature-rich and better suited for complex WebAssembly projects with tight JavaScript integration, while wasm-pack offers a simpler approach for basic WebAssembly compilation and packaging.

Pros of stdweb

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Provides a higher-level abstraction for DOM manipulation and JavaScript interop
• Offers a wider range of pre-built bindings for common web APIs

Cons of stdweb

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• May have larger bundle sizes due to its comprehensive feature set
• Potentially slower compilation times compared to wasm-pack

Code Comparison

stdweb example:

#[macro_use]
extern crate stdweb;
use stdweb::web::*;

fn main() {
    stdweb::initialize();
    let button = document().query_selector("#myButton").unwrap();
    button.add_event_listener(|_: ClickEvent| {
        js! { console.log("Button clicked!"); }
    });
    stdweb::event_loop();
}

wasm-pack example:

use wasm_bindgen::prelude::*;

#[wasm_bindgen(start)]
pub fn main() -> Result<(), JsValue> {
    let window = web_sys::window().expect("no global `window` exists");
    let document = window.document().expect("should have a document on window");
    let body = document.body().expect("document should have a body");
    let val = document.create_element("p")?;
    val.set_inner_html("Hello from Rust!");
    body.append_child(&val)?;
    Ok(())
}

The stdweb example demonstrates its higher-level abstractions for DOM manipulation and event handling, while the wasm-pack example shows a more low-level approach using web-sys.

Pros of Yew

• Comprehensive framework for building client-side web apps in Rust
• Rich ecosystem with pre-built components and libraries
• Strong community support and active development

Cons of Yew

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Rust or web development
• Larger bundle sizes compared to simpler WASM solutions
• May be overkill for small, simple projects

Code Comparison

Yew example:

use yew::prelude::*;

#[function_component(App)]
fn app() -> Html {
    html! {
        <h1>{"Hello, World!"}</h1>
    }
}

wasm-pack example:

use wasm_bindgen::prelude::*;

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn greet(name: &str) -> String {
    format!("Hello, {}!", name)
}

Additional Notes

Yew is a full-featured framework for building web applications with Rust and WebAssembly, while wasm-pack is a build tool for creating and working with Rust-generated WebAssembly. They serve different purposes but can be used together in a project.

Yew provides a more opinionated structure for building complex web applications, whereas wasm-pack offers flexibility in how you integrate Rust and WebAssembly into your existing web projects.

Pros of Wasmer

• More comprehensive WebAssembly runtime with broader language support
• Offers standalone runtime and embedding options for multiple languages
• Active development with frequent updates and larger community

Cons of Wasmer

• Larger project scope may be overkill for simple Rust-to-WebAssembly compilation
• Steeper learning curve due to more extensive features and options
• Potentially higher resource usage for basic WebAssembly tasks

Code Comparison

Wasmer (runtime usage):

use wasmer::{Store, Module, Instance};

let module = Module::from_file(&store, "example.wasm")?;
let instance = Instance::new(&module, &imports)?;
let result = instance.exports.get_function("sum")?;

wasm-pack (build command):

wasm-pack build --target web

Key Differences

• Wasmer focuses on WebAssembly runtime and execution, while wasm-pack is primarily a build tool for Rust-to-WebAssembly
• Wasmer provides a more flexible ecosystem for running WebAssembly across various environments
• wasm-pack is more specialized for Rust developers targeting web platforms
• Wasmer requires more setup but offers greater extensibility
• wasm-pack provides a simpler workflow for Rust-to-WebAssembly compilation and packaging

Pros of Emscripten

• More mature and widely adopted toolchain for compiling C/C++ to WebAssembly
• Supports a broader range of languages and libraries beyond Rust
• Provides a more complete runtime environment, including emulation of POSIX APIs

Cons of Emscripten

• Larger output size due to additional runtime components
• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup process
• Less optimized for Rust-specific use cases

Code Comparison

Emscripten (C++ to WebAssembly):

#include <emscripten.h>
#include <iostream>

EMSCRIPTEN_KEEPALIVE
extern "C" int add(int a, int b) {
    return a + b;
}

wasm-pack (Rust to WebAssembly):

use wasm_bindgen::prelude::*;

#[wasm_bindgen]
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

Emscripten requires more boilerplate and explicit exports, while wasm-pack leverages Rust's simpler syntax and built-in WebAssembly support. Emscripten's approach is more flexible for C/C++ projects, whereas wasm-pack is tailored for Rust development, offering a more streamlined experience for Rust-to-WebAssembly compilation.