It seems like there are two styles for writing NEAR smart contracts in assembly script
I was wondering under what circumstance one style is recommended over the other.
When should you use one over the other? What are the advantages/disadvantages of each style?
The big differences is in initialization of the contract.
For the first style, usually a persistent collection is declared at the top level. All top level code in each file is placed into a function and one start function calls each. The Wasm binary format allows to specify the start function so that anytime the binary is instantiated (e.i. loaded by a runtime) that function is called before any exported functions can be called.
For persistent collections this means allocating the objects, but no data is required from storage, until something is read, including the length or size of the collection.
A top level instance of the contract is declared. Then storage is checked for the "STATE" key, which contains the state of the instance. If it is present storage is read and the instance is deserialized from storage. Then each "method" of the contract is an exported function that uses the global instance, e.g. instance.method(...), passing the arguments to the method. If the method is decorated with @mutateState then the instance is written back to storage after the method call.
Singleton's provide a nice interface for the contract and is generally easier to understand. However, since you are reading from storage at every method call, it can be more expensive.
The other advantage of the BoF is it's easier to extend as you can export more functions from a dependency.
However, it's also possible to use a combination of both as well.
So really it's whatever makes sense to you.