Micronaut Framework vs Play

Overview

Play

Stacks752

Followers609

Votes496

GitHub Stars12.6K

Forks4.1K

Micronaut Framework

Stacks186

Followers330

Votes52

Micronaut Framework vs Play: What are the differences?

Introduction: Micronaut Framework and Play are two popular Java frameworks used for developing web applications. Both frameworks offer various features and capabilities, but there are key differences between them that developers should consider when choosing the right framework for their projects.

Architecture: Micronaut follows a compile-time approach to dependency injection and AOP, whereas Play follows a runtime approach. This difference impacts the start-up time of applications, with Micronaut having a faster start-up time due to its compile-time nature.
Size and Performance: Micronaut is designed to be lightweight and optimized for efficiency, leading to better performance compared to Play. Micronaut achieves this by reducing the amount of reflection and proxying used at runtime, resulting in lower memory consumption and improved application speed.
Configuration: Micronaut relies on compile-time optimizations for configuration management, while Play uses runtime configuration loading. This means that Micronaut's configuration is validated during compilation, reducing the chances of configuration-related runtime errors.
Serverless Support: Micronaut has better support for serverless architectures compared to Play. With features like AWS Lambda support and GraalVM compatibility, Micronaut is more suitable for developing applications that can be deployed in serverless environments.
Testing: Micronaut provides built-in support for unit and integration testing, making it easier for developers to test their applications. While Play also supports testing, Micronaut's testing capabilities are more streamlined and user-friendly.
Community and Ecosystem: Play has a larger and more established community compared to Micronaut, resulting in a wider range of resources, plugins, and third-party libraries available for developers. This can be an important consideration when selecting a framework based on community support and ecosystem maturity.

In Summary, Micronaut and Play differ in their architecture, size and performance, configuration approach, serverless support, testing capabilities, and community ecosystem, which are crucial factors to consider when choosing a framework for Java web development.

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

Play	Micronaut Framework
Play Framework makes it easy to build web applications with Java & Scala. Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture. Built on Akka, Play provides predictable and minimal resource consumption (CPU, memory, threads) for highly-scalable applications.	It is a modern, JVM-based, full-stack framework for building modular, easily testable microservice and serverless applications. It features a Dependency Injection and Aspect-Oriented Programming runtime that uses no reflection.
-	build testable microservice ; build serverless applications; JVM based framework
Statistics
GitHub Stars 12.6K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 4.1K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 752	Stacks 186
Followers 609	Followers 330
Votes 496	Votes 52
Pros & Cons
Pros 81 Scala 55 Web-friendly architecture 55 Built on akka 50 Stateless 47 High-scalable Cons 3 Evolves fast, keep up with releases 1 Unnecessarily complicated	Pros 12 Compilable to machine code 8 Tiny memory footprint 7 Almost instantaneous startup 7 Open source 6 Tiny compiled code size Cons 3 No hot reload
Integrations
No integrations available	GraalVM Kotlin Java Groovy

What are some alternatives to Play, Micronaut Framework?

Node.js

Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.

Rails

Rails is a web-application framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.

Django

Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.

Laravel

It is a web application framework with expressive, elegant syntax. It attempts to take the pain out of development by easing common tasks used in the majority of web projects, such as authentication, routing, sessions, and caching.

.NET

.NET is a general purpose development platform. With .NET, you can use multiple languages, editors, and libraries to build native applications for web, mobile, desktop, gaming, and IoT for Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, and more.

ASP.NET Core

A free and open-source web framework, and higher performance than ASP.NET, developed by Microsoft and the community. It is a modular framework that runs on both the full .NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform .NET Core.

Symfony

It is written with speed and flexibility in mind. It allows developers to build better and easy to maintain websites with PHP..

Spring

A key element of Spring is infrastructural support at the application level: Spring focuses on the "plumbing" of enterprise applications so that teams can focus on application-level business logic, without unnecessary ties to specific deployment environments.

Spring Boot

Spring Boot makes it easy to create stand-alone, production-grade Spring based Applications that you can "just run". We take an opinionated view of the Spring platform and third-party libraries so you can get started with minimum fuss. Most Spring Boot applications need very little Spring configuration.

Android SDK

Android provides a rich application framework that allows you to build innovative apps and games for mobile devices in a Java language environment.

Related Comparisons

Micronaut Framework vs Play: What are the differences?

Architecture: Micronaut follows a compile-time approach to dependency injection and AOP, whereas Play follows a runtime approach. This difference impacts the start-up time of applications, with Micronaut having a faster start-up time due to its compile-time nature.
Size and Performance: Micronaut is designed to be lightweight and optimized for efficiency, leading to better performance compared to Play. Micronaut achieves this by reducing the amount of reflection and proxying used at runtime, resulting in lower memory consumption and improved application speed.
Configuration: Micronaut relies on compile-time optimizations for configuration management, while Play uses runtime configuration loading. This means that Micronaut's configuration is validated during compilation, reducing the chances of configuration-related runtime errors.
Serverless Support: Micronaut has better support for serverless architectures compared to Play. With features like AWS Lambda support and GraalVM compatibility, Micronaut is more suitable for developing applications that can be deployed in serverless environments.
Testing: Micronaut provides built-in support for unit and integration testing, making it easier for developers to test their applications. While Play also supports testing, Micronaut's testing capabilities are more streamlined and user-friendly.
Community and Ecosystem: Play has a larger and more established community compared to Micronaut, resulting in a wider range of resources, plugins, and third-party libraries available for developers. This can be an important consideration when selecting a framework based on community support and ecosystem maturity.

Micronaut Framework vs Play

Overview