Buffalo vs Echo: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will discuss the key differences between Buffalo and Echo, two popular web application frameworks for the Go programming language.

1. Routing: Buffalo has a built-in routing system that makes it easy to define routes for different HTTP methods and URL patterns. It uses a convention-over-configuration approach, where the route handlers are automatically generated based on the file and function names. On the other hand, Echo provides a more flexible routing system that allows developers to define routes using a variety of patterns, including regular expressions. This gives developers more control over the routing logic but requires them to write more code.

2. Template Engine: Buffalo uses the Plush templating engine, which provides a simple and intuitive syntax for generating HTML views. It supports template inheritance, layout embedding, partials, and more. Echo, on the other hand, does not provide a built-in template engine. Instead, it allows developers to use any templating engine of their choice, such as Go's built-in html/template package or popular third-party libraries like gorazor.

3. Database Support: Buffalo includes an ORM (Object-Relational Mapping) called Pop, which is built on top of the popular GORM library. Pop simplifies database operations by providing a fluent API for querying, creating, updating, and deleting records. Echo, on the other hand, does not include an ORM out of the box. It allows developers to use any database library they prefer, such as GORM or SQLx, and provides a middleware called GORM that helps integrate GORM into Echo.

4. Asset Handling: Buffalo has built-in support for asset handling, which allows developers to easily manage static assets such as CSS, JavaScript, and images. It automatically compiles and minifies the assets, and provides helpers for including them in templates. Echo, on the other hand, does not provide a built-in asset handling system. Developers need to manually handle and serve static assets using either the http.FileServer middleware or a third-party library like go-bindata.

5. Authentication and Authorization: Buffalo includes a robust authentication and authorization system called Buffalo/Pop. It provides user registration, login, and password recovery functionality out of the box, and supports various authentication schemes such as session-based authentication and token-based authentication. Echo, on the other hand, does not provide an authentication and authorization system out of the box. Developers need to implement these features themselves or rely on third-party libraries like gorilla/sessions for session management and jwt-go for token-based authentication.

6. Validation: Buffalo includes a powerful validation package called github.com/gobuffalo/validate. It provides a fluent API for validating structs and form data, with support for various validation rules such as required fields, string length limits, and regular expressions. Echo, on the other hand, does not provide a built-in validation package. Developers need to use third-party libraries like go-playground/validator or go-validator for request validation.

In Summary, Buffalo and Echo differ in their routing approach, template engine support, database handling, asset management, authentication and authorization capabilities, and built-in validation packages.