lute

Pros of cmark

• Written in C, offering high performance and potential for easy integration with other languages
• Strictly adheres to the CommonMark specification, ensuring consistent parsing
• Extensively tested with a comprehensive test suite

Cons of cmark

• Limited to CommonMark syntax, lacking support for extended Markdown features
• Less flexibility for customization compared to Lute
• Primarily focused on parsing and rendering, with fewer additional utilities

Code Comparison

cmark

cmark_node *document = cmark_parse_document(buffer, len, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);
char *html = cmark_render_html(document, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);
printf("%s", html);
free(html);
cmark_node_free(document);

Lute

engine := lute.New()
html := engine.MarkdownStr("", markdown)
fmt.Println(html)

Summary

cmark is a high-performance C implementation of CommonMark, offering strict adherence to the specification and extensive testing. It's ideal for projects requiring fast, standard-compliant Markdown parsing. Lute, written in Go, provides more flexibility and extended Markdown features, making it suitable for projects needing customization or additional Markdown syntax support. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements, performance needs, and desired Markdown feature set.

Pros of Goldmark

• Faster parsing and rendering performance
• More extensive CommonMark compliance
• Wider adoption and community support

Cons of Goldmark

• Less feature-rich compared to Lute's advanced functionalities
• Limited support for custom syntax extensions
• Fewer built-in options for customizing output

Code Comparison

Goldmark:

md := goldmark.New(
    goldmark.WithExtensions(extension.GFM),
    goldmark.WithParserOptions(
        parser.WithAutoHeadingID(),
    ),
)
var buf bytes.Buffer
if err := md.Convert([]byte(source), &buf); err != nil {
    panic(err)
}

Lute:

engine := lute.New()
engine.SetGFMTable(true)
engine.SetGFMTaskListItem(true)
engine.SetHeadingAnchor(true)
html := engine.MarkdownStr("", source)

Both libraries offer easy-to-use APIs for converting Markdown to HTML, but Lute provides more built-in options for customization, while Goldmark focuses on extensibility through its modular design.

Pros of Blackfriday

• More established and widely used in the Go community
• Faster parsing and rendering performance
• Extensive CommonMark compliance

Cons of Blackfriday

• Less active development and maintenance
• Fewer customization options for rendering
• Limited support for extended Markdown features

Code Comparison

Blackfriday:

import "github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2"

markdown := []byte("# Hello, World!")
html := blackfriday.Run(markdown)

Lute:

import "github.com/88250/lute"

engine := lute.New()
markdown := "# Hello, World!"
html := engine.MarkdownStr("", markdown)

Both libraries offer straightforward APIs for converting Markdown to HTML. Blackfriday uses a functional approach with the Run function, while Lute employs an object-oriented style with the engine instance.

Lute provides more configuration options and supports additional Markdown extensions, making it more flexible for customized rendering. However, Blackfriday's simpler API and better performance make it a popular choice for projects prioritizing speed and standard Markdown compliance.

Pros of markdown

• More actively maintained with frequent updates and contributions
• Broader language support, including CommonMark and GitHub Flavored Markdown
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier integration

Cons of markdown

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to understand and modify
• Less focus on performance optimization compared to Lute
• May have a steeper learning curve for newcomers to the project

Code Comparison

Lute (parsing example):

ast := parse.Parse("", []byte("Hello, *Lute*!"), luteEngine.ParseOptions)

markdown (parsing example):

parser := parser.NewWithExtensions(parser.CommonExtensions)
node := parser.Parse([]byte("Hello, *markdown*!"))

Both libraries offer similar functionality for parsing Markdown, but Lute's API appears more concise in this example. However, markdown provides more flexibility with parsing extensions.

Summary

While markdown offers broader language support and more active development, Lute focuses on performance and simplicity. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, such as the need for extensive Markdown flavors or performance optimization.

Pros of marked

• Widely adopted and battle-tested in production environments
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Lightweight and fast performance

Cons of marked

• Limited customization options for parsing and rendering
• Lacks some advanced features like syntax highlighting and table of contents generation

Code comparison

marked:

import { marked } from 'marked';

const markdown = '# Hello, world!';
const html = marked(markdown);
console.log(html);

lute:

import "github.com/88250/lute"

markdown := "# Hello, world!"
engine := lute.New()
html := engine.MarkdownStr("", markdown)
fmt.Println(html)

Key differences

• marked is written in JavaScript, while lute is written in Go
• lute offers more advanced features like syntax highlighting and custom rendering
• marked has a simpler API and is easier to integrate into web applications
• lute provides better support for Chinese language processing and formatting

Use cases

• marked: Ideal for web applications requiring basic Markdown parsing
• lute: Suitable for projects needing advanced Markdown features and Chinese language support

Community and maintenance

• marked: Large community, frequent updates, and extensive third-party ecosystem
• lute: Smaller community, but actively maintained with regular updates