highway

Pros of swup

• Smaller file size and lighter weight
• More extensive documentation and examples
• Wider browser compatibility, including older versions

Cons of swup

• Less flexible animation options
• Requires more setup for complex transitions
• Limited built-in caching mechanisms

Code Comparison

swup:

const swup = new Swup();

swup.on('contentReplaced', () => {
  // Do something after content is replaced
});

Highway:

const H = new Highway.Core();

class Fade extends Highway.Transition {
  in({ from, to, done }) {
    // Animation logic here
    done();
  }
}

H.registerTransition(Fade);

Key Differences

• swup focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while Highway offers more control over transitions
• Highway provides a more object-oriented approach with separate transition classes
• swup has a simpler API, making it easier for beginners to implement
• Highway offers more advanced features for complex animations and page transitions

Both libraries aim to enhance the user experience by providing smooth page transitions in single-page applications. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preferred level of control over animations.

Pros of Barba

• More mature and established project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Offers a wider range of transitions and animations out of the box
• Provides better documentation and examples for easier implementation

Cons of Barba

• Slightly larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex setup process for advanced features
• Less flexible for highly customized transitions compared to Highway

Code Comparison

Highway:

const H = new Highway.Core();

H.on('NAVIGATE_IN', ({ to, location }) => {
  // Do something when the page is loaded
});

Barba:

barba.init({
  transitions: [{
    name: 'opacity-transition',
    leave(data) {
      return gsap.to(data.current.container, {opacity: 0});
    },
    enter(data) {
      return gsap.from(data.next.container, {opacity: 0});
    }
  }]
});

Both libraries aim to create smooth page transitions in single-page applications, but they differ in their approach and feature set. Highway focuses on simplicity and flexibility, while Barba offers more built-in functionality and a larger ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your preferred level of customization.

Pros of Turbolinks

• Seamless integration with Ruby on Rails applications
• Automatic handling of browser history and URL updates
• Extensive documentation and large community support

Cons of Turbolinks

• Limited customization options for transitions and animations
• Potential conflicts with JavaScript-heavy applications
• Steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with Ruby on Rails

Code Comparison

Turbolinks:

document.addEventListener("turbolinks:load", function() {
  // Your JavaScript code here
});

Highway:

import Highway from '@dogstudio/highway';

const H = new Highway.Core({
  transitions: {
    default: Fade
  }
});

Key Differences

• Highway is a standalone JavaScript library, while Turbolinks is primarily designed for Ruby on Rails applications
• Highway offers more flexibility in creating custom transitions and animations
• Turbolinks focuses on speed and simplicity, while Highway emphasizes creative freedom in page transitions

Use Cases

• Turbolinks: Ideal for Ruby on Rails applications seeking improved performance without major changes to the existing codebase
• Highway: Best suited for projects requiring highly customized and visually appealing page transitions, especially in creative or portfolio websites

Both libraries aim to enhance the user experience by providing smoother navigation between pages, but they cater to different development environments and project requirements.

Pros of Turbo

• Integrated with Ruby on Rails, offering seamless server-side rendering and progressive enhancement
• Supports real-time updates through Turbo Streams, enabling dynamic content without full page reloads
• Provides a complete solution for building modern web applications with less JavaScript

Cons of Turbo

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Ruby on Rails ecosystem
• Less flexibility for custom animations and transitions compared to Highway
• May require more server-side logic and configuration

Code Comparison

Highway (basic navigation):

const H = new Highway.Core();

H.on('NAVIGATE_IN', ({ to, location }) => {
  console.log(`Navigating to: ${location.href}`);
});

Turbo (basic navigation):

import { Turbo } from "@hotwired/turbo-rails"

document.addEventListener("turbo:load", () => {
  console.log("Page loaded:", location.href);
});

Both libraries aim to enhance web navigation, but Highway focuses on smooth page transitions and animations, while Turbo provides a more comprehensive solution for building modern web applications with less client-side JavaScript. Highway offers more control over animations, while Turbo integrates tightly with Ruby on Rails and provides real-time update capabilities.

Pros of Barba

• More mature and established project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Offers a wider range of transitions and animations out of the box
• Provides better documentation and examples for easier implementation

Cons of Barba

• Slightly larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex setup process for advanced features
• Less flexible for highly customized transitions compared to Highway

Code Comparison

Highway:

const H = new Highway.Core();

H.on('NAVIGATE_IN', ({ to, location }) => {
  // Do something when the page is loaded
});

Barba:

barba.init({
  transitions: [{
    name: 'opacity-transition',
    leave(data) {
      return gsap.to(data.current.container, {opacity: 0});
    },
    enter(data) {
      return gsap.from(data.next.container, {opacity: 0});
    }
  }]
});

Both libraries aim to create smooth page transitions in single-page applications, but they differ in their approach and feature set. Highway focuses on simplicity and flexibility, while Barba offers more built-in functionality and a larger ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your preferred level of customization.

Pros of smoothState.js

• Simpler implementation for basic page transitions
• Lightweight and focused on smooth page transitions
• Easier to integrate into existing projects without major restructuring

Cons of smoothState.js

• Less feature-rich compared to Highway
• Limited customization options for complex transitions
• Not actively maintained (last update in 2017)

Code Comparison

smoothState.js:

$('#main').smoothState({
  onStart: {
    duration: 250,
    render: function ($container) {
      $container.addClass('is-exiting');
    }
  }
});

Highway:

class Fade extends Highway.Transition {
  in({ from, to, done }) {
    from.remove();
    gsap.fromTo(to, { opacity: 0 }, { opacity: 1, onComplete: done });
  }
  out({ from, done }) {
    gsap.to(from, { opacity: 0, onComplete: done });
  }
}

Summary

While smoothState.js offers a simpler approach to page transitions, Highway provides more advanced features and customization options. smoothState.js may be suitable for smaller projects or quick implementations, whereas Highway is better suited for complex, modern web applications requiring sophisticated transitions and animations. Highway also benefits from active maintenance and a more recent codebase.