Minima.js vs. Other Frameworks

Choosing the right framework can be overwhelming. This guide compares Minima.js with popular alternatives to help you understand what makes Minima.js fundamentally different.

The Fundamental Difference

Most Node.js frameworks are built on top of other frameworks, creating layers of abstraction. Minima.js is built from scratch—no Express, no Fastify, no legacy dependencies. This architectural choice enables capabilities that simply aren't possible with wrapper-based frameworks.

Feature Comparison

While Minima.js shares goals with other frameworks, its from-scratch architecture leads to fundamental differences in developer experience, performance, and capabilities.

Feature	Minima.js	Express	Fastify	NestJS
Architecture	Built from scratch	Legacy (2010)	Modern Node core	Wrapper (Express/Fastify)
Runtime Support	Bun + Node.js	Node.js only	Node.js only	Node.js only
Request/Response	Web API Standard	Node.js specific	Node.js wrapper	Inherited (Node.js)
Paradigm	Functional, Hooks	Middleware chain	Plugins, Encapsulation	OOP, Decorators, DI
TypeScript	First-class, built-in	Community types	Schema-driven	First-class, integral
Async Context	Built-in (AsyncLocalStorage)	Manual prop-drilling	Request decorators	DI / Providers
Performance	Highest (Bun-native)	Moderate	High	High (with Fastify)
Learning Curve	Minimal	Low	Moderate	Steep

Key Takeaways:

• Performance & Modernity: Minima.js's main advantage comes from its native Bun support and clean, from-scratch architecture, which avoids the legacy baggage present in frameworks like Express and wrappers like NestJS.
• Developer Experience: Minima.js embraces a functional, minimal approach, leveraging modern features like AsyncLocalStorage for context. This contrasts sharply with NestJS's OOP, decorator, and DI-heavy paradigm (akin to Angular), and differs from Express's manual patterns and Fastify's plugin ecosystem.
• Standards-Based: By using the Web API Request/Response objects, Minima.js ensures code is more portable and aligned with modern JavaScript standards, unlike older frameworks tied to Node.js-specific objects.

Philosophical Differences: Minima.js vs. NestJS

While the table above provides a high-level overview, the core difference between Minima.js and NestJS lies in their fundamental philosophy.

• NestJS: Framework-Managed Abstraction

  • NestJS brings patterns from Angular and Spring Boot to Node.js, heavily relying on decorators, dependency injection (DI), and a class-based (OOP) structure.
  • This "enterprise" approach abstracts away much of JavaScript's native functionality, which can feel familiar to developers from other ecosystems but adds layers of complexity and "magic."
  • Accessing request context or managing dependencies requires framework-specific APIs and a container-managed lifecycle.

• Minima.js: Explicit Control and Simplicity

  • Minima.js is designed to embrace JavaScript's functional nature. It avoids DI containers and decorators in favor of simple, composable functions.
  • Dependencies are explicit and local. Asynchronous context is managed via the native AsyncLocalStorage API, making request data available anywhere without framework boilerplate.
  • This results in a clearer execution flow, less magic, and code that is more aligned with modern JavaScript standards.