Hug vs Jolteon: What are the differences?
Developers describe Hug as "New Python REST API and CLI micro-framework". Hug aims to make developing Python driven APIs as simple as possible, but no simpler. As a result, it drastically simplifies Python API development. On the other hand, Jolteon is detailed as "Babel/Electron/React/Browserify/Sass application stack". Babel + Electron + React + Browserify + Sass application stack. Gets the stupid work done so you can actually make something.
Hug can be classified as a tool in the "Microframeworks (Backend)" category, while Jolteon is grouped under "Frameworks (Full Stack)".
Hug and Jolteon are both open source tools. It seems that Hug with 5.8K GitHub stars and 344 forks on GitHub has more adoption than Jolteon with 990 GitHub stars and 43 GitHub forks.
What is Hug?
What is Jolteon?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Why do developers choose Jolteon?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Hug?
What are the cons of using Jolteon?
What companies use Jolteon?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Unlike our frontend, we chose Flask, a microframework, for our backend. We use it with Python 3 and Gunicorn.
One of the reasons was that I have significant experience with this framework. However, it also was a rather straightforward choice given that our backend almost only serves REST APIs, and that most of the work is talking to the database with SQLAlchemy .
We could have gone with something like Hug but it is kind of early. We might revisit that decision for new services later on.