Pros of GSAP

• More comprehensive animation features, including complex timelines and advanced easing functions
• Better performance, especially for complex animations and large numbers of objects
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for specialized animations (e.g., ScrollTrigger, MorphSVG)

Cons of GSAP

• Steeper learning curve due to more advanced features and API
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for smaller projects
• Commercial license required for some use cases, unlike TweenJS's open-source MIT license

Code Comparison

TweenJS:

createjs.Tween.get(myObject)
  .to({x: 100, y: 200}, 1000, createjs.Ease.elasticOut)
  .call(handleComplete);

GSAP:

gsap.to(myObject, {
  x: 100,
  y: 200,
  duration: 1,
  ease: "elastic.out",
  onComplete: handleComplete
});

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for tweening properties, but GSAP provides more options and flexibility in its API. GSAP's syntax is often more concise and intuitive, especially for complex animations. However, TweenJS integrates seamlessly with other CreateJS libraries, which can be advantageous for projects already using the CreateJS suite.

Pros of anime

• Lightweight and standalone with no dependencies
• Supports a wider range of animation targets (CSS, SVG, DOM, JavaScript objects)
• More modern API with better performance

Cons of anime

• Less mature ecosystem compared to TweenJS
• Fewer built-in easing functions
• Limited support for complex animation sequences

Code Comparison

TweenJS:

createjs.Tween.get(element)
  .to({x: 100, y: 200}, 1000, createjs.Ease.elasticOut)
  .call(handleComplete);

anime:

anime({
  targets: element,
  translateX: 100,
  translateY: 200,
  duration: 1000,
  easing: 'easeOutElastic',
  complete: handleComplete
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic tweening, but anime provides a more concise and modern syntax. TweenJS uses a chaining approach, while anime uses a configuration object. anime's API is generally more flexible and easier to read, especially for complex animations.

TweenJS is part of the larger CreateJS suite, which can be advantageous if you're already using other CreateJS libraries. However, anime is more focused on animation specifically and may be a better choice for projects that don't require the full CreateJS ecosystem.

Pros of tween.js

• Lightweight and standalone, with no dependencies
• Supports a wider range of easing functions out-of-the-box
• More active development and community support

Cons of tween.js

• Less integrated with other animation tools compared to TweenJS
• Lacks some advanced features like timeline management

Code Comparison

TweenJS:

createjs.Tween.get(target)
    .to({x: 300, y: 200}, 1000, createjs.Ease.elasticOut)
    .call(onComplete);

tween.js:

new TWEEN.Tween(target)
    .to({x: 300, y: 200}, 1000)
    .easing(TWEEN.Easing.Elastic.Out)
    .onComplete(onComplete)
    .start();

Both libraries offer similar syntax for basic tweening operations. TweenJS uses a chaining approach with the get() method, while tween.js creates a new Tween instance. The easing functions are applied differently, with TweenJS using createjs.Ease and tween.js using TWEEN.Easing. TweenJS combines the call() method for completion callbacks, whereas tween.js uses onComplete(). Overall, the syntax is quite similar, making it relatively easy to switch between the two libraries.

Pros of Shifty

• Lightweight and focused solely on tweening, making it more modular and potentially faster
• Supports custom easing functions and allows for easy creation of new ones
• Provides a more modern API with Promise support and better TypeScript integration

Cons of Shifty

• Smaller community and less extensive documentation compared to TweenJS
• Lacks some advanced features like timeline management found in TweenJS
• May require additional libraries for more complex animations or integration with canvas-based projects

Code Comparison

Shifty:

import { tween } from 'shifty';

tween({
  from: { x: 0 },
  to: { x: 100 },
  duration: 1000,
  easing: 'easeInOutQuad',
  render: state => console.log(state.x)
});

TweenJS:

createjs.Tween.get(target)
  .to({ x: 100 }, 1000, createjs.Ease.quadInOut)
  .addEventListener("change", handleChange);

function handleChange(event) {
  console.log(target.x);
}

Both libraries offer straightforward APIs for creating tweens, but Shifty's approach is more functional and modern, while TweenJS is more object-oriented and integrated with the CreateJS suite.

Pros of frame.js

• Lightweight and minimalistic, focusing solely on animation timing
• Provides a simple API for creating and managing animations
• Easily integrates with other JavaScript libraries and frameworks

Cons of frame.js

• Less feature-rich compared to TweenJS, with fewer built-in easing functions
• Smaller community and fewer resources available for support
• Limited documentation and examples

Code Comparison

TweenJS:

createjs.Tween.get(target)
  .to({x: 300, y: 200}, 1000, createjs.Ease.elasticOut)
  .call(handleComplete);

frame.js:

FRAME.Tween(target)
  .to({x: 300, y: 200}, 1000)
  .easing(FRAME.Easing.Elastic.Out)
  .onComplete(handleComplete);

Both libraries offer similar syntax for creating tweens, but TweenJS provides more built-in easing functions and a wider range of animation options. frame.js focuses on simplicity and core animation functionality, making it a good choice for projects that require lightweight animation capabilities. TweenJS, being part of the CreateJS suite, offers more robust features and better integration with other CreateJS libraries, making it suitable for more complex animation projects and interactive experiences.