Pros of PHP-CS-Fixer

• Actively maintained and regularly updated
• Extensive configuration options for customizing coding standards
• Large community support and contributions

Cons of PHP-CS-Fixer

• Learning curve for complex configurations
• May require additional setup for integration with certain IDEs or CI/CD pipelines

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain the same codebase, as they are the same project. Here's an example of how to use PHP-CS-Fixer in a PHP project:

<?php

$config = new PhpCsFixer\Config();
$config
    ->setRules([
        '@PSR2' => true,
        'array_syntax' => ['syntax' => 'short'],
        'no_unused_imports' => true,
    ])
    ->setFinder(PhpCsFixer\Finder::create()
        ->in(__DIR__)
        ->exclude('vendor')
    )
;

return $config;

This configuration file sets up PHP-CS-Fixer to use PSR-2 coding standards, short array syntax, and removes unused imports. It also excludes the 'vendor' directory from being processed.

Note: Since both repositories are identical, there are no direct comparisons to be made between them. The pros and cons listed above apply to the PHP-CS-Fixer project as a whole.

Pros of PHP_CodeSniffer

• More flexible and customizable, allowing users to define their own coding standards
• Supports a wider range of PHP versions, including older ones
• Can be used for both detecting and fixing coding standard violations

Cons of PHP_CodeSniffer

• Generally slower performance compared to PHP-CS-Fixer
• Less opinionated, which may require more setup and configuration
• Fixing capabilities are not as advanced as PHP-CS-Fixer

Code Comparison

PHP_CodeSniffer:

<?php
$phpcsFile = $phpcsFile;
$tokens    = $phpcsFile->getTokens();
foreach ($tokens as $token) {
    // Process tokens
}

PHP-CS-Fixer:

<?php
$finder = PhpCsFixer\Finder::create()
    ->in(__DIR__)
    ->exclude('vendor');
$config = new PhpCsFixer\Config();
return $config->setRules([
    '@PSR2' => true,
]);

Both tools aim to improve code quality and maintain consistent coding standards in PHP projects. PHP_CodeSniffer offers more flexibility and customization options, making it suitable for projects with specific coding standards. On the other hand, PHP-CS-Fixer provides better performance and more advanced fixing capabilities, making it ideal for projects that want to quickly enforce common coding standards with minimal configuration.

Pros of Psalm

• Provides static analysis and type checking, enhancing code quality and catching potential errors
• Offers more comprehensive analysis of code structure and potential issues
• Supports gradual typing, allowing for incremental adoption in existing projects

Cons of Psalm

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex features and configuration options
• May produce more false positives, requiring additional configuration to fine-tune

Code Comparison

Psalm example:

<?php
/** @psalm-param array<string, int> $data */
function processData(array $data): void {
    foreach ($data as $key => $value) {
        echo $key . ': ' . $value . PHP_EOL;
    }
}

PHP-CS-Fixer example:

<?php
function processData(array $data): void
{
    foreach ($data as $key => $value) {
        echo $key . ': ' . $value . PHP_EOL;
    }
}

Psalm focuses on type checking and static analysis, while PHP-CS-Fixer primarily handles code style and formatting. Psalm's example includes type annotations for enhanced static analysis, whereas PHP-CS-Fixer's example demonstrates consistent code formatting.

Pros of PHPStan

• Performs static analysis to detect bugs and errors without running the code
• Provides more in-depth type checking and inference
• Offers customizable rule levels for gradual adoption

Cons of PHPStan

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• May produce false positives in certain scenarios
• Requires more configuration for optimal results

Code Comparison

PHPStan example:

<?php
function foo(int $a, string $b): void {
    echo $a + $b;
}

PHPStan would detect the type mismatch in the addition operation.

PHP-CS-Fixer example:

<?php
function foo ( $a,$b ){
    echo $a+$b;
}

PHP-CS-Fixer would format the code to improve readability:

<?php
function foo($a, $b)
{
    echo $a + $b;
}

PHP-CS-Fixer focuses on code style and formatting, while PHPStan performs deeper static analysis. PHPStan is better suited for catching potential runtime errors and improving code quality, whereas PHP-CS-Fixer excels at maintaining consistent coding standards across projects. Both tools complement each other and can be used together for comprehensive PHP code improvement.

Pros of phan

• Performs advanced static analysis and type checking
• Detects a wider range of potential issues and bugs
• Offers more in-depth analysis of code quality and potential runtime errors

Cons of phan

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• May produce more false positives, requiring careful tuning
• Slower analysis time, especially for larger codebases

Code Comparison

PHP-CS-Fixer (fixing code style):

$foo = array("bar" => "baz");
$hello   =    "world";

After fixing:

$foo = ['bar' => 'baz'];
$hello = 'world';

phan (static analysis):

function greet($name) {
    return "Hello, " . $name;
}

greet(42);

phan output:

test.php:4 PhanTypeMismatchArgument Argument 1 ($name) is 42 of type 42 but greet() takes string defined at test.php:1

PHP-CS-Fixer focuses on code style and formatting, while phan performs deep static analysis to detect potential bugs and type-related issues. PHP-CS-Fixer is easier to set up and use, making it more accessible for quick code style improvements. phan, on the other hand, offers more comprehensive analysis but requires more configuration and may take longer to run, especially on larger projects.