When comparing Slim vs Fat-Free Framework, the Slant community recommends Slim for most people. In the question“What are the best PHP frameworks?” Slim is ranked 1st while Fat-Free Framework is ranked 3rd. 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 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.
Pro Simple development set up
Pro Lightweight without losing functionality
The framework is very lightweight and fast. Even though it's pretty light, it still does not lose a lot of functionality.
Pro Shortened development time
Building an application that processes a URL (display a page, submit a form, invoke Ajax, etc.) requires very little code and can be achieved very quickly. Allows developers to focus on the application itself and not the plumbing.
Pro Easy to get started
After you download the framework it is very simple to get an app up and running very quickly. Makes it easy for newer PHP and web app developers to start using a MVC framework.
Pro Very stable
You know those frameworks that have updated 5 times during your own development phase? Well, F3 sees one or two updates per year. Never had any issues updating or upgrading. F3 just works.
Pro ORM supports sql, nosql, and jig
Pro Highly modular
Virtually everything is modular. You can choose which modules and libraries to include and to keep the framework as lightweight as possible.
Pro FREE structure
Pro No canned coding/directory structure
Freedom to structure your projects' directories and codes as you wish.
F3 is a non-opinionated framework : you are entirely free to use the files/API/assets structure that you love.
Following a minimalistic approach, F3 tends to avoid adding code and structure that are not strictly necessary, while focusing on what really matters : coding your solution; actually you learn F3 while implementing/coding your project/webapp
Pro Multiple view engines
Default view engine is superb and can also work with varieties of PHP view engines including Twig.
Pro Vibrant community behind the framework
The community is responsive and helpful in clarifying the aspects of the framework.
Pro Very little spin up time
The time to go from knowing nothing about Fat-Free to getting a project completed is very reduced compared to other bulky frameworks.
Pro Comprehensive documentation and API reference
Concise and to the point documentation. Includes many examples and complete API reference.
Pro Unit testing toolkit
Pro No composer, curl or dependency injectors
You download a zip file and use it by placing require(); statement. No need to use composer, curl or any dependency injector which sometime become a great pain.
Pro Very little not included by default
In a framework that's so small, it puts the rest to shame.
Pro Self documenting code
Pro Good documentation
With many examples which are easy to follow by new users.
Cons
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.
Con Community is a bit small, so if you get stuck you have trouble finding answers via google
Searching for "fat-free minification" on google sometimes doesn't give you the "right" answer.
Con Backward incompatible within minor version
There are serious incompatibilities even between minor versions (eg. between 3.6.0 and 3.6.2). Developers exhibit complete lack of understanding what is versioning of product (and which changes should be integrated in which versions), which makes this framework unsuitable for serious work. Development is slow, stable versions are rare and not treated seriously.
Con Default ORM doesn't support joins
The default ORM for this framework is missing some features such as joins. But it's important to keep in mind that it's a small plugin, only 23KB in size which still can be replaced with a larger ORM if needed.
An alternative the drop in f3-cortex ORM which is popular, and supported by the community, which supports Joins and much more.
Con Need more example of working code and directory structures and usage with JS and CSS frameworks
Con Abandoned
The project has been abandoned since 2016. (not abandoned since 2019 with multiple new releases)
Con The default template engine is "home made"
Con Lack of video tutorials
While there is a great user guide, compared to other established PHP frameworks, there is a relative shortage of video and written step-by-step tutorials for newbies to learn this framework.
