Pros of HGCircularSlider

• Focused specifically on circular slider functionality
• Lightweight and easy to integrate
• Customizable appearance with various options

Cons of HGCircularSlider

• Limited to circular slider functionality
• Less comprehensive animation and interaction features
• Smaller community and fewer updates

Code Comparison

HGCircularSlider:

let circularSlider = HGCircularSlider(frame: CGRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 200, height: 200))
circularSlider.minimumValue = 0.0
circularSlider.maximumValue = 100.0
view.addSubview(circularSlider)

Motion:

let button = Button()
button.animate(.scale(1.5))
button.animate(.rotate(45))
view.layout(button).center()

HGCircularSlider is focused on creating circular sliders with a simple API, while Motion provides a more comprehensive animation and layout framework. HGCircularSlider is ideal for projects requiring specific circular slider functionality, whereas Motion offers a broader range of animation and interaction capabilities for various UI elements.

Pros of LiquidFloatingActionButton

• Focused on creating a specific, visually appealing floating action button with liquid animation
• Lightweight and easy to implement for a single purpose
• Customizable appearance with various properties for color, size, and animation

Cons of LiquidFloatingActionButton

• Limited in scope, only provides a floating action button component
• Less flexibility for creating complex animations or transitions
• May require additional libraries for more advanced UI interactions

Code Comparison

LiquidFloatingActionButton:

let button = LiquidFloatingActionButton(frame: CGRect(x: 0, y: 0, width: 56, height: 56))
button.center = self.view.center
button.animateStyle = .up
button.color = .blue
self.view.addSubview(button)

Motion:

let button = FABButton(image: Icon.add)
button.pulseColor = .white
button.backgroundColor = .blue
view.layout(button).bottom(24).right(24).size(56)

Summary

LiquidFloatingActionButton is a specialized library for creating a visually appealing floating action button with liquid animation. It's easy to implement but limited in scope. Motion, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive animation and UI framework that offers greater flexibility and a wider range of components and animations. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and the desired level of customization and functionality.

Pros of paper-onboarding

• Focused specifically on onboarding UI, providing a streamlined solution for this use case
• Offers a visually appealing paper-like animation effect
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects

Cons of paper-onboarding

• Limited in scope compared to Motion's broader animation capabilities
• Less customization options for advanced use cases
• Fewer active contributors and updates

Code Comparison

paper-onboarding:

let onboarding = PaperOnboarding()
onboarding.dataSource = self
onboarding.delegate = self
view.addSubview(onboarding)

Motion:

let animation = Motion.animate(duration: 0.5) {
    view.alpha = 0.5
    view.scale = 0.8
}
animation.completion = { finished in
    print("Animation completed")
}

Summary

paper-onboarding is a specialized library for creating engaging onboarding experiences with a unique paper-like animation effect. It's easy to use but limited in scope. Motion, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive animation framework with greater flexibility and customization options. While paper-onboarding excels in its niche, Motion provides a broader set of tools for various animation needs in iOS development.

Pros of folding-cell

• Focused on a specific UI component (folding cell), making it easier to implement for this particular use case
• Lightweight and simple to integrate into existing projects
• Provides a visually appealing and interactive animation out of the box

Cons of folding-cell

• Limited in scope compared to Motion's broader animation framework
• Less flexibility for creating custom animations beyond the folding cell effect
• May require additional libraries or custom code for more complex UI interactions

Code Comparison

folding-cell:

let cell = FoldingCell()
cell.itemCount = 4
cell.backgroundColor = .clear

cell.foregroundView = foregroundView
cell.containerView = containerView

Motion:

let animation = Motion.animate(.fade)
animation.timingFunction = .easeInOut
animation.duration = 0.5

button.motion([.fade, .scale(0.5)])
Motion.animate(animation)

While folding-cell provides a specific, ready-to-use UI component, Motion offers a more flexible and comprehensive animation framework for various UI elements and transitions. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the desired level of customization.

Pros of expanding-collection

• Focused on a specific UI component (expanding cards collection)
• Simpler implementation for its specific use case
• Includes a demo app showcasing the component's functionality

Cons of expanding-collection

• Limited in scope compared to Motion's broader animation framework
• Less flexibility for custom animations outside of the expanding cards concept
• Fewer stars and contributors on GitHub, potentially indicating less community support

Code Comparison

expanding-collection:

let viewController = ExpandingViewController(style: .fill)
viewController.itemSize = CGSize(width: 256, height: 335)
viewController.collectionView?.contentInset = UIEdgeInsets(top: 20, left: 0, bottom: 0, right: 0)

Motion:

let v1 = UIView()
v1.animate(.fadeIn)
v1.animate(.translate(x: 100, y: 100))
v1.animate(.spin)

The code snippets demonstrate the different focus areas of the two libraries. expanding-collection is centered around configuring and customizing the expanding cards view controller, while Motion provides a more general-purpose animation framework with chainable animation methods for various UI elements.

Pros of circle-menu

• Focused on a specific UI component (circular menu), making it easier to implement for this particular use case
• Lightweight and simple to integrate, with minimal dependencies
• Provides a visually appealing and interactive circular menu animation out-of-the-box

Cons of circle-menu

• Limited in scope compared to Motion's broader animation framework
• Less flexibility for customizing animations beyond the circular menu concept
• Fewer active contributors and updates, potentially leading to compatibility issues with newer iOS versions

Code Comparison

Motion:

let animation = Motion(duration: 0.5)
animation.animate(to: view) { (view) in
    view.alpha = 1
    view.transform = CGAffineTransform(scaleX: 1.5, y: 1.5)
}

circle-menu:

let circleMenu = CircleMenu(
    frame: view.bounds,
    normalIcon:"icon_menu",
    selectedIcon:"icon_close",
    buttonsCount: 4,
    duration: 4,
    distance: 120)
view.addSubview(circleMenu)

While Motion offers a more general-purpose animation framework, circle-menu provides a ready-to-use circular menu component with predefined animations. Motion allows for greater customization of various animations, whereas circle-menu focuses on delivering a specific UI element with less complexity in implementation.