The crates.io frontend is currently built with Ember.js. We're evaluating alternatives due to:
- Difficulty finding contributors: Ember's declining mindshare makes it hard to attract help
- Bundle size: Current JS payload is larger than ideal
- Ecosystem decline: Fewer packages, less community activity, uncertain long-term future
- ~70–75% static/read-only pages (crate info, search results, browsing)
- ~25–30% interactive features (settings, token management, dashboards)
- Interactivity is mostly simple request/response patterns, no complex real-time state
- SEO matters for crate discoverability, but audience is developers who tolerate some loading time
How active and healthy is the framework's community, and how likely is it to be around and well-supported in 5+ years?
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Massive community, rich ecosystem, strong backing, dominant market position |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Large active community, healthy ecosystem, clear long-term viability |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Medium community, adequate ecosystem for most needs, stable but not growing |
| ⭐⭐ | Small but loyal community, limited ecosystem, shrinking mindshare |
| ⭐ | Very small community, sparse ecosystem, high risk of abandonment |
| 0 | Dead or dying project, no community activity |
Bundle size, initial load time, runtime performance, and memory usage.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Minimal/no JS shipped, near-instant load, excellent runtime performance |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Small bundle (<50kb), fast initial load, smooth interactions |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Moderate bundle (50-150kb), acceptable load times, adequate runtime performance |
| ⭐⭐ | Large bundle (150-300kb), noticeable load times, occasional sluggishness |
| ⭐ | Very large bundle (>300kb), slow initial load, poor runtime performance |
| 0 | Unusably slow, massive payload |
Day-to-day ergonomics: type safety, error messages, hot reload, IDE support, debugging.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Excellent ergonomics, first-class types, great errors, instant hot reload, superb IDE support |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Good ergonomics, solid type support, helpful errors, fast iteration cycle |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Adequate DX, types available but not seamless, workable tooling |
| ⭐⭐ | Rough edges, limited type support, slow feedback loops, sparse tooling |
| ⭐ | Poor ergonomics, weak types, confusing errors, painful iteration |
| 0 | Actively hostile to developers |
Server-side rendering maturity, hydration strategy, SEO capability.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | SSR is the default/primary mode, mature tooling, flexible hydration strategies |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Well-supported SSR, stable implementation, good documentation |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | SSR available and functional, may require some configuration or trade-offs |
| ⭐⭐ | SSR possible but experimental, limited documentation, rough edges |
| ⭐ | SSR technically possible but not practical, significant limitations |
| 0 | No SSR support, client-only |
CSS handling, scoped styles, theming support, integration with modern CSS tooling.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | First-class scoped styles built-in, excellent theming support, seamless CSS tooling integration |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Good built-in styling solution, scoping works well, easy to integrate with CSS tools |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Styling works but requires some setup or third-party library, adequate scoping |
| ⭐⭐ | Styling is an afterthought, manual scoping, limited tooling integration |
| ⭐ | Awkward styling story, poor CSS support, fighting the framework |
| 0 | No reasonable path to styled components |
Unit testing, integration testing, E2E compatibility, test tooling maturity.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Excellent built-in test utilities, mature ecosystem, great mocking support, works seamlessly with E2E tools |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Good testing story, established patterns, solid library support |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Testing works, community solutions available, adequate documentation |
| ⭐⭐ | Testing possible but limited tooling, sparse examples, some friction |
| ⭐ | Testing is painful, immature tooling, poor documentation |
| 0 | No practical way to test components |
Hosting requirements, CDN compatibility, build output simplicity.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Static files to any CDN, or trivial server setup, zero special requirements |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Straightforward deployment, well-documented hosting options, minor config needed |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Deployment works, may need specific runtime or platform considerations |
| ⭐⭐ | Complex deployment, significant infrastructure requirements, limited hosting options |
| ⭐ | Difficult deployment, specialized hosting needed, high operational burden |
| 0 | Deployment is a nightmare |
Effort to migrate from current Ember.js codebase, including incremental adoption possibilities.
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | No migration needed (staying with current solution) |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Incremental migration possible, can coexist with Ember, clear migration patterns |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Mostly straightforward rewrite, concepts transfer well, tooling helps |
| ⭐⭐ | Moderate effort, some paradigm shifts required, manageable scope |
| ⭐ | Significant rewrite, different mental model, limited reuse of existing code |
| 0 | Complete rewrite, fundamentally different paradigm, steep learning curve |
Existing experience with the framework across the team (maintainers and contributors).
| Stars | Description |
|---|---|
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Deep production experience across multiple team members |
| ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Strong experience from at least one maintainer, others have some exposure |
| ⭐⭐⭐ | Moderate experience (side projects, tutorials), team could ramp up reasonably fast |
| ⭐⭐ | Limited exposure, significant learning curve for most of the team |
| ⭐ | No meaningful experience on the team, starting from scratch |
| 0 | Actively unfamiliar or averse |
| Framework | Community | Performance | DX | SSR | Styling | Testing | Deployment | Migration | Familiarity | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ember.js | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | 30 |
| Rust SSR | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | 28 |
| Rust SSR + htmx | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐⭐ | 27 |
| Svelte 5 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | 33 | |
| Svelte 5 + SSR | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | 34 |
| Leptos | ⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐ | 19 |
| Dioxus | ⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐ | ⭐ | 18 |
| React | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | 32 |
| Vue | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ⭐⭐ | 34 |
- Staying avoids migration effort entirely
- Testing story is mature (QUnit, ember-test-helpers)
- Bundle size is a known issue
- Contributor pool continues to shrink
- Perfect for static pages, zero JS overhead
- Forms require full page reloads or custom JS
- No established patterns for interactive features
- Testing templates requires custom setup
- Tight backend integration (single codebase)
- htmx adds interactivity without SPA complexity
- Still very lightweight JS footprint (~14kb)
- Partial page updates via AJAX
- Less mature ecosystem, fewer established patterns
- Testing htmx interactions requires E2E tests
- Excellent DX with runes reactivity model
- Compiler-based approach yields small bundles
- Built-in scoped CSS is excellent
- No SSR means slower first paint, weaker SEO
- Growing ecosystem, good trajectory
- Best of both worlds: fast first paint and interactivity
- SvelteKit is mature and well-documented
- Flexible: SSR, SSG, or hybrid per-route
- Adds deployment complexity (needs Node.js runtime or adapter)
- Migration is a full rewrite, but concepts are approachable
- Rust everywhere appeals conceptually
- WASM bundle sizes are larger than compiled Svelte/Vue
- DX is rougher than JS alternatives (compile times, error messages)
- Small maintainer team, ecosystem risk
- SSR support exists but less mature
- Similar tradeoffs to Leptos
- Multi-platform ambitions may dilute web focus
- Largest talent pool by far
- Ecosystem is massive but fragmented (many choices to make)
- Performance requires effort (memoization, careful state management)
- Testing is excellent (React Testing Library, mature patterns)
- Good middle ground: approachable, performant, well-documented
- Single-file components similar to Svelte
- Nuxt provides mature SSR story
- Smaller than React but still very healthy ecosystem
- Independent governance (not tied to single company)