lucky

Pros of Hanami

• More mature and established framework with a larger community
• Modular architecture allowing for flexible application structure
• Comprehensive documentation and guides for developers

Cons of Hanami

• Steeper learning curve due to its modular nature
• Slower development pace compared to Lucky
• Less focus on type safety and compile-time checks

Code Comparison

Hanami route definition:

# config/routes.rb
root to: 'home#index'
resources :books, only: [:index, :show]

Lucky route definition:

# src/actions/home/index.cr
class Home::Index < BrowserAction
  get "/" do
    html IndexPage
  end
end

Hanami emphasizes convention over configuration, while Lucky leverages Crystal's type system for enhanced safety and performance. Hanami's modular approach allows for more flexibility in application structure, whereas Lucky focuses on a more opinionated, streamlined development experience.

Both frameworks aim to provide efficient web development tools, but they cater to different preferences and priorities. Hanami offers a mature ecosystem with extensive documentation, while Lucky emphasizes compile-time safety and rapid development through Crystal's features.

Pros of Turbo Rails

• Seamless integration with Ruby on Rails, leveraging existing Rails knowledge
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Easy to implement progressive enhancement for existing Rails applications

Cons of Turbo Rails

• Limited to Ruby on Rails framework, less flexible for other backend technologies
• May require more JavaScript knowledge for advanced features
• Performance can be affected by the overhead of Rails

Code Comparison

Lucky (Crystal):

class Users::Index < BrowserAction
  get "/users" do
    users = UserQuery.new.recently_added
    html Users::IndexPage, users: users
  end
end

Turbo Rails (Ruby):

class UsersController < ApplicationController
  def index
    @users = User.recently_added
  end
end

Key Differences

• Lucky is built with Crystal, offering type safety and high performance
• Turbo Rails focuses on enhancing existing Rails applications with modern SPA-like features
• Lucky provides a more opinionated, full-stack framework approach
• Turbo Rails is part of the Hotwire ecosystem, integrating well with other Hotwire libraries

Use Cases

• Choose Lucky for building high-performance, type-safe web applications from scratch
• Opt for Turbo Rails when enhancing existing Rails applications or prioritizing Rails ecosystem compatibility

Pros of Trailblazer

• Modular architecture allows for flexible implementation across different frameworks
• Provides a comprehensive set of abstractions for business logic and domain modeling
• Supports complex workflows and multi-step operations with built-in state management

Cons of Trailblazer

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive set of concepts and abstractions
• Can introduce additional complexity for simpler applications
• Less opinionated about database interactions and ORM usage

Code Comparison

Lucky (Crystal):

class Users::Index < BrowserAction
  get "/users" do
    users = UserQuery.new.recently_created
    html Users::IndexPage, users: users
  end
end

Trailblazer (Ruby):

class Users::Index < Trailblazer::Operation
  step :fetch_users
  step :render

  def fetch_users(ctx, **)
    ctx[:users] = User.recently_created
  end

  def render(ctx, users:, **)
    # Rendering logic here
  end
end

Lucky focuses on a more traditional MVC approach with built-in database querying and view rendering. Trailblazer, on the other hand, emphasizes separation of concerns and explicit step definitions for business logic. Lucky provides a more streamlined development experience for typical web applications, while Trailblazer offers greater flexibility and scalability for complex domain logic.

Pros of Padrino

• Mature and well-established framework with a larger community and ecosystem
• Modular architecture allows for flexible and customizable application structure
• Supports multiple ORMs, testing frameworks, and template engines

Cons of Padrino

• Less active development compared to Lucky (last commit over a year ago)
• Older technology stack, potentially lacking modern features and optimizations
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set and flexibility

Code Comparison

Lucky (Crystal):

class Users::Index < BrowserAction
  get "/users" do
    users = UserQuery.new.recently_created
    html Users::IndexPage, users: users
  end
end

Padrino (Ruby):

MyApp.controllers :users do
  get :index do
    @users = User.recently_created
    render 'users/index'
  end
end

Summary

Lucky is a modern web framework written in Crystal, focusing on type safety and performance. It offers a more opinionated structure and leverages Crystal's compile-time checks for enhanced reliability.

Padrino is a Ruby web framework that extends Sinatra, providing a full-stack alternative to Ruby on Rails. It offers more flexibility and modularity but may require more configuration and decision-making from developers.

Both frameworks aim to simplify web development, but Lucky's type system and performance optimizations make it attractive for developers prioritizing speed and reliability. Padrino's maturity and extensive ecosystem make it suitable for developers who need more flexibility and are comfortable with Ruby.