Pros of qpdf

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Extensive command-line interface for PDF manipulation
• Supports a wider range of PDF operations and transformations

Cons of qpdf

• Primarily a C++ library, which may limit integration options for some developers
• Less focus on GUI applications compared to PDF4QT
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

qpdf:

QPDF pdf;
pdf.processFile("input.pdf");
QPDFWriter w(pdf, "output.pdf");
w.setStreamDataMode(qpdf_s_compress);
w.write();

PDF4QT:

PDFDocument document;
document.load("input.pdf");
PDFWriter writer(&document);
writer.write("output.pdf");

Summary

qpdf is a powerful, command-line focused PDF library with extensive manipulation capabilities. It offers a wide range of features but may be more complex for beginners. PDF4QT, on the other hand, is designed with Qt integration in mind, making it more suitable for GUI applications and potentially easier for developers familiar with the Qt framework. Both libraries provide PDF manipulation functionality, but their focus and target use cases differ.

Pros of pikepdf

• Python-based library, making it accessible to a wider range of developers
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Lightweight and focused specifically on PDF manipulation

Cons of pikepdf

• Limited GUI capabilities compared to PDF4QT
• May require additional libraries for advanced features
• Less comprehensive in terms of overall PDF functionality

Code Comparison

PDF4QT (C++):

PDFDocument doc;
doc.load("input.pdf");
PDFPage* page = doc.getPage(0);
page->addText("Hello, World!", 100, 100);
doc.save("output.pdf");

pikepdf (Python):

import pikepdf

pdf = pikepdf.Pdf.open("input.pdf")
page = pdf.pages[0]
page.add_text("Hello, World!", x=100, y=100)
pdf.save("output.pdf")

Summary

PDF4QT is a comprehensive C++ library with GUI capabilities, while pikepdf is a lightweight Python library focused on PDF manipulation. PDF4QT offers more extensive features but may have a steeper learning curve. pikepdf is more accessible to Python developers and has strong community support, but may require additional libraries for advanced functionality.

Pros of PyMuPDF

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Broader platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android)
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of PyMuPDF

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Licensing may be more restrictive for commercial use
• Larger file size and memory footprint

Code Comparison

PyMuPDF:

import fitz
doc = fitz.open("example.pdf")
page = doc[0]
text = page.get_text()

PDF4QT:

#include <PDFDocument.h>
PDFDocument document("example.pdf");
PDFPage* page = document.getPage(0);
QString text = page->getText();

PyMuPDF offers a more concise Python API, while PDF4QT provides a C++ interface with Qt integration. PyMuPDF's approach may be more accessible for Python developers, whereas PDF4QT might be preferred in Qt-based applications or when C++ is the primary language.

Pros of pdfminer.six

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for Python developers
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing Python projects

Cons of pdfminer.six

• Limited functionality compared to PDF4QT's comprehensive feature set
• Slower performance for large PDF files
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

pdfminer.six:

from pdfminer.high_level import extract_text

text = extract_text('sample.pdf')
print(text)

PDF4QT:

#include <pdf4qt/pdfdocument.h>

PDFDocument document("sample.pdf");
QString text = document.getText();
qDebug() << text;

Summary

pdfminer.six is a Python-based PDF parsing library, while PDF4QT is a C++ library with Qt integration. pdfminer.six offers simplicity and ease of use for Python developers, but PDF4QT provides more comprehensive features and better performance for large files. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, programming language preference, and performance needs.

Pros of itext-java

• More mature and widely adopted library with extensive documentation
• Supports a broader range of PDF manipulation features
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of itext-java

• Commercial licensing required for certain use cases
• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• Larger footprint and potential performance overhead

Code Comparison

itext-java:

PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(new PdfWriter(dest));
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello World!"));
document.close();

PDF4QT:

PDFDocument document;
PDFPage* page = document.createPage(QSizeF(595, 842));
PDFTextObject* text = new PDFTextObject(page);
text->setText("Hello World!");
page->addObject(text);

Summary

itext-java is a more established and feature-rich PDF library for Java, offering extensive capabilities but with potential licensing and complexity considerations. PDF4QT, on the other hand, is a Qt-based C++ library that may provide a simpler approach for basic PDF operations, particularly in Qt-based applications. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, programming language preference, and licensing considerations.

Pros of pdf.js

• Written in JavaScript, making it highly portable and easy to integrate into web applications
• Extensive browser compatibility, including mobile devices
• Large community support and regular updates due to Mozilla backing

Cons of pdf.js

• Limited features compared to native PDF readers
• Performance can be slower for large or complex PDF files
• Lacks advanced PDF editing capabilities

Code Comparison

PDF4QT (C++):

void PDFRenderer::renderPage(int pageNumber, QPainter* painter, qreal zoom)
{
    PDFPage* page = m_document->getPage(pageNumber);
    page->render(painter, zoom);
}

pdf.js (JavaScript):

pdfjsLib.getDocument(url).promise.then(function(pdf) {
  pdf.getPage(1).then(function(page) {
    var scale = 1.5;
    var viewport = page.getViewport({scale: scale});
    page.render({canvasContext: context, viewport: viewport});
  });
});

Summary

PDF4QT is a Qt-based PDF library written in C++, offering native performance and integration with Qt applications. It provides more advanced features and better performance for complex PDFs. On the other hand, pdf.js is a JavaScript-based PDF renderer that excels in web environments, offering broad compatibility and easy integration into web applications. While pdf.js may have performance limitations for large files, it benefits from extensive community support and regular updates from Mozilla.