Compose vs Recompose

Overview

Compose

Stacks258

Followers121

Votes206

Recompose

Stacks73

Followers19

Votes0

GitHub Stars15.0K

Forks1.2K

Compose vs Recompose: What are the differences?

File Size: One key difference between Compose and Recompose is the file size. Compose typically produces smaller file sizes as it generates static markup at build time, while Recompose may result in larger file sizes due to its runtime calculation and generation of markup.
Performance: Compose is usually faster in terms of rendering performance compared to Recompose because Compose generates static UI components at compile time, reducing the work required during runtime. On the other hand, Recompose's runtime calculation of UI components can lead to potential performance bottlenecks.
Flexibility: Compose offers more flexibility in building complex UI components as developers can leverage Kotlin's full expressive power, including features like extensions and generics. Recompose, although powerful, may have limitations in terms of flexibility due to its functional programming approach.
Learning Curve: Compose might have a steeper learning curve for developers who are not familiar with Kotlin or functional programming concepts. Recompose, being based on functional programming principles, could be easier to grasp for developers already familiar with such paradigms.
Documentation & Community Support: Compose, being a newer technology, may have less extensive documentation and community support compared to Recompose, which has been around for a longer period of time and has a more established user base.
Integration with Existing Codebase: Another significant difference between Compose and Recompose is the ease of integration with existing codebases. Compose, being a native solution for Android development, may provide better integration with existing Kotlin codebases, while Recompose may require more effort to integrate seamlessly.

In Summary, Compose and Recompose differ in terms of file size, performance, flexibility, learning curve, documentation & community support, and integration with existing codebases.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

Compose	Recompose
Compose makes it easy to spin up multiple open source databases with just one click. Deploy MongoDB for production, take Redis out for a performance test drive, or spin up RethinkDB in development before rolling it out to production.	It is a React utility belt for function components and higher-order components. A higher-order component (HOC) refers to a function that accepts a single React component and returns a new React component. Think of it like lodash for React.
One click, production-ready, cloud hosted MongoDB, Redis, Elasticsearch, PostgreSQL and RethinkDB, with additional databases in beta. Every deployment features: database autoscaling based on data size usage; private VLAN, IP whitelisting, SSL, full-stack monitoring, custom alerts; HA and fault tolerance with automatic failover; enterprise-grade SSD; easy to add plugins including New Relic; daily, weekly and monthly backups at no additional cost; availability on multiple data centers; a global support team to troubleshoot problems quickly; dedicated servers available.	Higher-order components made easy; Optimizing bundle size
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 15.0K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 1.2K
Stacks 258	Stacks 73
Followers 121	Followers 19
Votes 206	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 42 Simple to set up 32 One-click mongodb 29 Automated Backups 23 Designed to scale 21 Easy interface	No community feedback yet
Integrations
SoftLayer Heroku Amazon EC2 DigitalOcean	React rollup

What are some alternatives to Compose, Recompose?

Underscore

A JavaScript library that provides a whole mess of useful functional programming helpers without extending any built-in objects.

MongoLab

mLab is the largest cloud MongoDB service in the world, hosting over a half million deployments on AWS, Azure, and Google.

Deno

It is a secure runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript built with V8, Rust, and Tokio.

Chart.js

Visualize your data in 6 different ways. Each of them animated, with a load of customisation options and interactivity extensions.

MongoDB Atlas

MongoDB Atlas is a global cloud database service built and run by the team behind MongoDB. Enjoy the flexibility and scalability of a document database, with the ease and automation of a fully managed service on your preferred cloud.

Immutable.js

Immutable provides Persistent Immutable List, Stack, Map, OrderedMap, Set, OrderedSet and Record. They are highly efficient on modern JavaScript VMs by using structural sharing via hash maps tries and vector tries as popularized by Clojure and Scala, minimizing the need to copy or cache data.

ObjectRocket

Fast, scalable, and reliably-managed Mongo DB, Redis, Elasticsearch, PostgreSQL, CockroachDB and TimescaleDB. An easy to use DBaaS (database as a service) platform on private or public cloud. Complete DB Management & Administration.

Lodash

A JavaScript utility library delivering consistency, modularity, performance, & extras. It provides utility functions for common programming tasks using the functional programming paradigm.

Ramda

It emphasizes a purer functional style. Immutability and side-effect free functions are at the heart of its design philosophy. This can help you get the job done with simple, elegant code.

Vue CLI

Vue CLI aims to be the standard tooling baseline for the Vue ecosystem. It ensures the various build tools work smoothly together with sensible defaults so you can focus on writing your app instead of spending days wrangling with config.

Related Comparisons

Compose vs Recompose: What are the differences?

File Size: One key difference between Compose and Recompose is the file size. Compose typically produces smaller file sizes as it generates static markup at build time, while Recompose may result in larger file sizes due to its runtime calculation and generation of markup.
Performance: Compose is usually faster in terms of rendering performance compared to Recompose because Compose generates static UI components at compile time, reducing the work required during runtime. On the other hand, Recompose's runtime calculation of UI components can lead to potential performance bottlenecks.
Flexibility: Compose offers more flexibility in building complex UI components as developers can leverage Kotlin's full expressive power, including features like extensions and generics. Recompose, although powerful, may have limitations in terms of flexibility due to its functional programming approach.
Learning Curve: Compose might have a steeper learning curve for developers who are not familiar with Kotlin or functional programming concepts. Recompose, being based on functional programming principles, could be easier to grasp for developers already familiar with such paradigms.
Documentation & Community Support: Compose, being a newer technology, may have less extensive documentation and community support compared to Recompose, which has been around for a longer period of time and has a more established user base.
Integration with Existing Codebase: Another significant difference between Compose and Recompose is the ease of integration with existing codebases. Compose, being a native solution for Android development, may provide better integration with existing Kotlin codebases, while Recompose may require more effort to integrate seamlessly.

In Summary, Compose and Recompose differ in terms of file size, performance, flexibility, learning curve, documentation & community support, and integration with existing codebases.

Compose vs Recompose

Overview