When comparing Li3 vs Slim, the Slant community recommends Slim for most people. In the question“What are the best PHP frameworks?” Slim is ranked 1st while Li3 is ranked 10th. The most important reason people chose Slim is:
Slim's documentation is well organized and detailed, every concept is thoroughly explained and it is very helpful for both advanced users and beginners.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Unified relational and non-relational database API
Lithium has unified the relational and non-relational database APIs into a single one. Being one of the few frameworks to do it.
Pro Robust plugin architecture
Lithium makes use of PHP namespaces to create a powerful plugin architecture. Almost every component of the framework is replaceable.
Pro Fast Bootstrap & Autoloader
This framework loads faster than most due to its class autoloader. It is flexible as well and handles older classes - but requires the developer to define transforms here for naming convention, includes, etc. Many other frameworks use Composer for autoloading and that significantly slows down their bootstrap time because Composer's autoloader is extremely compatible without much developer interaction (it does not require as much involvement for autoloading legacy libraries). So it's a trade-off, speed vs. a little bit of up-front work.
Pro Integrated unit testing
Lithium comes with integrated unit testing. It also has a test dashboard.
Pro Aspect inspired filter system
Lithium's filter system is based on the paradigm of Aspect-oriented programming which aims to increase modularity by separating cross-cutting concerns and helping speed up development.
Pro Great for building an API
Lithium can return JSON and many other formats from the same actions that render templates increasing productivity in many cases. It handles a "type" key in the route which allows it to render various responses with different Content-Types. This is incredibly useful and easy to extend. This combined with closures in routes makes Lithium a very good framework for building a RESTful API.
Pro Well organized and thorough documentation
Slim's documentation is well organized and detailed, every concept is thoroughly explained and it is very helpful for both advanced users and beginners.
Pro A good starting point
Slim is minimal and that is a good thing if you want to start from there. It can be easily extended and even supports popular packages that are used in Laravel (like Illuminate\Database (eloquent)) for example.
Pro REST based
REST fans will love the REST based architecture.
Pro Supports tie-ins for Rack-like middleware
Rack is an interface used in Ruby frameworks used to group and order modules, which most of the time are Ruby classes, and specify between them.
Slim uses a simple concept for it's middleware. By wrapping HTTP requests and responses it unifies the middleware into a single method call.
Pro Useful classes
Contains classes for managing requests, responses, cookies, logging, views, HTTP caching, and more.
Pro Flexible
Slim doesn't demand that you stick to a fixed folder structure. As long as you load Slim the right way you can do anything from there the way you like it.
Pro Extremely lightweight
Paired with swoole it's a micro service powerhouse.
Pro Open source
The Slim Framework is open source and is released under the MIT public license
Pro Extremely customizable
You can add any dependency, package or class that you want to use as a contained dependency.
Pro Supports Php 5.3 and PHP 7
Pro Makes it easy to understand the way some abstract functions and classes are built
In Django most things are abstracted, you just call some function or class without knowing how they were built, but with Slim, you end up understanding the way some abstract functions and classes are built.
Pro Hooks for executing code at different points in its life-cycle
Slim supports code hooks for executing functions at different points in time during the application's lifecycle.
Cons
Con Less than ideal documentation
Documentation is scattered so it takes a little while to learn and figure some things out.
Con Very little consistency among different versions
There have been quite some changes that break the compatibility between Slim 2 and Slim 3. Even if you learned how to work with the Slim 2, you will find that Slim 3 requires re-training.
Con Dependency injection is too weak
It is not really dependency injection, but just a configurable container.
Con Needs strong bases to create dependencies
The dependency container schema of Slim is one of the biggest PROS and CONS of the framework. It is true that this schema brings so much flexibility to add anything, but another thing that is true is that you need to have strong bases of patterns, and an extensive knowledge of your libraries to convert it into a Slim dependency.
Con Too minimal
While it's true that Slim is a microframework, it's still too minimal. When used for throwaway projects or simple prototypes, it's perfect. But in the long run, it becomes less and less useful and you end up in implementing a full custom framework in trying to tackle all the missing features.
