And these are top 3 based on... what? They have some qualities, sure but what makes them better than all the others?
Buffalo is nice as an all-in-one goto solution. But it is actually built on Gorilla and the overhead of trying to do everything is visible. It wants to replicate Rails and I'm not sure that's a good thing, it's one of the slower Go frameworks (so I guess the replication works)
Gorilla is one of the oldest frameworks still around and it's basically a sort of standard. In both a good and a bad way. In a good way in the sense that it has inspired other projects that try to beat it and in a bad way in that the code is messy and often nonsensical given the way it's picked up all possible coding styles in Go history.
But there are others as well.
Gin is somewhat of a newer standard for microservice. Go kit may provide the tooling but I found that Gin has out of the box support around the microservice ecosystem. It's also fast.
Fiber v2 is pretty great in that it doesn't try to do too much. It's one of the fastest frameworks out there barring using plan routers and it has just enough tooling. It's inspired by Express and inherits most of the good things about it.
Echo framework isn't too bad either. It's not as popular as it deserves given how well organized it is. I guess it has the reputation of not being quite idiomatic and it's also not the fastest of the bunch but man, it's so damn well organized and logic that doing anything is a breeze even without reading the docs.
I don't think I would consider any of these frameworks, maybe with the exception being Gorilla. I don't see Gorilla as a framework, more than a library, though.
This article seems very biased/based, as well as based on very little experience with the frameworks/libraries.
The article does not hold any statistical and/or quantifiable data concerning likes, stars, adoption in Go community, how many are using it, benchmarks, anything.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
And these are top 3 based on... what? They have some qualities, sure but what makes them better than all the others?
Buffalo is nice as an all-in-one goto solution. But it is actually built on Gorilla and the overhead of trying to do everything is visible. It wants to replicate Rails and I'm not sure that's a good thing, it's one of the slower Go frameworks (so I guess the replication works)
Gorilla is one of the oldest frameworks still around and it's basically a sort of standard. In both a good and a bad way. In a good way in the sense that it has inspired other projects that try to beat it and in a bad way in that the code is messy and often nonsensical given the way it's picked up all possible coding styles in Go history.
But there are others as well.
Gin is somewhat of a newer standard for microservice. Go kit may provide the tooling but I found that Gin has out of the box support around the microservice ecosystem. It's also fast.
Fiber v2 is pretty great in that it doesn't try to do too much. It's one of the fastest frameworks out there barring using plan routers and it has just enough tooling. It's inspired by Express and inherits most of the good things about it.
Echo framework isn't too bad either. It's not as popular as it deserves given how well organized it is. I guess it has the reputation of not being quite idiomatic and it's also not the fastest of the bunch but man, it's so damn well organized and logic that doing anything is a breeze even without reading the docs.
I entirely agree with this comment.
I don't think I would consider any of these frameworks, maybe with the exception being Gorilla. I don't see Gorilla as a framework, more than a library, though.
This article seems very biased/based, as well as based on very little experience with the frameworks/libraries.
The article does not hold any statistical and/or quantifiable data concerning likes, stars, adoption in Go community, how many are using it, benchmarks, anything.