Socket.io and WebSockets. Both names you hear used interchangeably, but no. There is a big difference.
Comparing Socket.io with Websockets might seem a bit like comparing apples to oranges. One is a library, while the other is a protocol. But no, there’s a lot more to it, which we will delve into.
Socket.io
Socket.io was initially made during a period where WebSockets were not widely supported. Socket.io’s key selling point is that it allows you to fallback back to a technique called long-polling on browsers which don’t support native WebSockets.
But in recent years, WebSockets have skyrocketed in popularity, being supported by nearly every browser.
I have also had some recent issues with Socket.io on high load systems (eg. clients randomly being disconnected, packets not receiving correctly) and it can be a pain to debug since everything is very abstracted away. (This is just my opinion and could just be a fault of my coding.)
This is not to say Socket.io is useless now, it offers many key functionality which would be hard to implement with just a native WebSocket server.
- Autoconnect : No need to manage connections manually.
- Namespaces : Separate communication channels.
- Rooms : Segment your connections.
- Subscriptions Service : In-built mechanism for real-time updates.
- Pre-designed Protocol : Standardized communication protocols.
- Logging Support : Built-in diagnostic capabilities.
- Integration with Services : E.g., Redis for scalable real-time apps.
| Feature | Socket.io |
|---|---|
| Autoconnect | ✅ |
| Rooms | ✅ |
| Logging | ✅ |
| Integration with Redis | ✅ |
Socket.io allows you to jump straight into coding without getting too entangled in designing underlying communication mechanisms, which makes it ideal for quick prototypes and small-scale apps.
Websockets
Websockets is the core protocol that Socket.io is built on top of. Using it natively means you have the utmost control, but you must also manage every aspect, dealing with raw binary data in many cases.
- Absolute Control : Design your architecture & protocol.
- Lightweight : Just a protocol, no overhead of a library.
- Flexibility : Implement features as you deem fit.
However, there are several features not natively available:
Autoconnect- Subscription Service
- Logging
- Fallback Support
- Rooms or Namespaces
| Feature | Websockets |
|---|---|
| Absolute Control | ✅ |
| Lightweight | ✅ |
| Autoconnect | ❌ |
With Websockets, you’ll spend a significant amount of time designing, debugging, and implementing features, especially for larger applications.
I personally prefer using a Websocket server like uWS which gives me the benefits of native websockets, while also keeping ease of use pretty high (please note that you still have to use the native API client-side)
Conclusion
I have used both Socket.io and WebSockets, and I cannot give a definitive answer simply because they are better suited for different projects. Here are a few key points to consider though.
- Project Scale : For more complex projects relying on smooth and uninterrupted connections, plain WebSockets might be more lightweight and more apt for the task.
- Team Size : Handling Websockets might be a hefty task for a solo developer or small team.
- Customization Needs : If you need absolute control, Websockets offers flexibility.
- Functional Requirements : For basic needs, Socket.io might suffice.
In the end, always choose the tool that aligns best with your project’s needs and your comfort level. Both Socket.io and Websockets have their merits. It’s about finding the right balance for your particular situation.