Pros of webextensions-examples

• Cross-browser compatibility focus, supporting multiple browsers
• Comprehensive documentation with detailed explanations for each example
• Regularly updated to reflect the latest Web Extensions API changes

Cons of webextensions-examples

• Fewer examples compared to chrome-extensions-samples
• Less focus on advanced or complex extension scenarios
• May not cover some Chrome-specific features or APIs

Code Comparison

webextensions-examples (from borderify example):

document.body.style.border = "5px solid red";

chrome-extensions-samples (from hello-world example):

let changeColor = document.getElementById("changeColor");
chrome.storage.sync.get("color", ({ color }) => {
  changeColor.style.backgroundColor = color;
});

The webextensions-examples code is simpler and more generic, while the chrome-extensions-samples code demonstrates Chrome-specific APIs and more complex functionality.

Pros of Awesome-WebExtensions

• Curated list of resources, tools, and libraries for cross-browser extension development
• Includes a wider range of topics, such as debugging tools, boilerplates, and testing frameworks
• Community-driven with contributions from various developers

Cons of Awesome-WebExtensions

• Lacks official Google Chrome documentation and examples
• May not be as up-to-date with the latest Chrome-specific features
• Does not provide complete, ready-to-use extension samples

Code Comparison

chrome-extensions-samples:

chrome.runtime.onInstalled.addListener(() => {
  chrome.action.setBadgeText({
    text: "OFF",
  });
});

Awesome-WebExtensions (using webextension-polyfill):

browser.runtime.onInstalled.addListener(() => {
  browser.browserAction.setBadgeText({
    text: "OFF",
  });
});

The main difference is that Awesome-WebExtensions often uses the browser namespace from the WebExtension polyfill, which provides cross-browser compatibility, while chrome-extensions-samples uses the Chrome-specific chrome namespace.

Pros of webextension-polyfill

• Provides a unified API for cross-browser extension development
• Simplifies the process of porting Chrome extensions to Firefox
• Offers Promise-based APIs for asynchronous operations

Cons of webextension-polyfill

• Limited to browser API compatibility, doesn't cover all Chrome-specific features
• May introduce a slight performance overhead due to the abstraction layer
• Requires additional setup and integration into existing projects

Code Comparison

chrome-extensions-samples:

chrome.tabs.query({active: true, currentWindow: true}, function(tabs) {
  chrome.tabs.sendMessage(tabs[0].id, {greeting: "hello"}, function(response) {
    console.log(response.farewell);
  });
});

webextension-polyfill:

browser.tabs.query({active: true, currentWindow: true}).then((tabs) => {
  browser.tabs.sendMessage(tabs[0].id, {greeting: "hello"}).then((response) => {
    console.log(response.farewell);
  });
});

The webextension-polyfill example uses Promises and the browser namespace, making it more compatible with Firefox and easier to work with asynchronous operations. The chrome-extensions-samples example uses callback-based APIs specific to Chrome, which may require more adaptation for cross-browser compatibility.

Pros of generator-chrome-extension

• Provides a scaffolding tool for quickly setting up Chrome extension projects
• Offers a more structured approach to extension development
• Includes build tools and automation for improved development workflow

Cons of generator-chrome-extension

• Less comprehensive in terms of example code and use cases
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires additional setup and dependencies

Code Comparison

chrome-extensions-samples:

chrome.runtime.onInstalled.addListener(() => {
  chrome.action.setBadgeText({
    text: "OFF",
  });
});

generator-chrome-extension:

'use strict';

chrome.runtime.onInstalled.addListener(details => {
  console.log('previousVersion', details.previousVersion);
});

Summary

chrome-extensions-samples is a collection of example extensions provided by Google, offering a wide range of use cases and code samples. It's ideal for learning and reference but doesn't provide project structure or build tools.

generator-chrome-extension is a Yeoman generator that creates a structured project setup for Chrome extensions. It includes build tools and automation, making it more suitable for larger projects and experienced developers. However, it may be less beginner-friendly and offers fewer example implementations compared to chrome-extensions-samples.

The choice between the two depends on the developer's needs, experience level, and project requirements. chrome-extensions-samples is better for learning and quick reference, while generator-chrome-extension is more suitable for structured, scalable extension development.