Pros of highlight.js

• Larger language support out-of-the-box (189+ languages)
• Automatic language detection
• Simpler setup and usage for basic implementations

Cons of highlight.js

• Larger file size, potentially impacting page load times
• Less extensible and customizable compared to Prism
• Fewer built-in plugins and add-ons

Code Comparison

highlight.js:

<pre><code class="language-javascript">
function greet(name) {
  console.log(`Hello, ${name}!`);
}
</code></pre>
<script>hljs.highlightAll();</script>

Prism:

<pre><code class="language-javascript">
function greet(name) {
  console.log(`Hello, ${name}!`);
}
</code></pre>
<script>Prism.highlightAll();</script>

Both libraries use similar markup, but Prism offers more granular control over highlighting and provides a wider range of customization options through its plugin system. highlight.js is often preferred for its simplicity and automatic language detection, while Prism is favored for its extensibility and lighter weight. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and preferences.

Pros of CodeMirror 5

• Full-featured code editor with advanced functionality like autocomplete, search/replace, and line wrapping
• Highly customizable with a wide range of options and add-ons
• Supports real-time collaborative editing

Cons of CodeMirror 5

• Larger file size and more complex setup compared to Prism
• Steeper learning curve for basic syntax highlighting use cases
• May be overkill for simple code snippet display

Code Comparison

Prism:

Prism.highlightAll();

CodeMirror 5:

var editor = CodeMirror.fromTextArea(document.getElementById("code"), {
  lineNumbers: true,
  mode: "javascript"
});

Summary

Prism is lightweight and focused on syntax highlighting, making it ideal for displaying code snippets on websites. CodeMirror 5 is a full-featured code editor that offers more advanced functionality but comes with increased complexity and file size. Choose Prism for simple highlighting needs and CodeMirror 5 for interactive editing experiences.

Pros of Shiki

• Produces pixel-perfect syntax highlighting using TextMate grammars
• Supports a wide range of themes out of the box
• Generates HTML with inline styles, making it easier to use in various environments

Cons of Shiki

• Larger bundle size due to including VSCode's syntax highlighting engine
• Slower performance compared to Prism, especially for large code blocks
• Less flexibility in customizing language definitions

Code Comparison

Prism:

Prism.highlight(code, Prism.languages.javascript, 'javascript');

Shiki:

const highlighter = await shiki.getHighlighter({ theme: 'nord' });
const html = highlighter.codeToHtml(code, { lang: 'js' });

Both Prism and Shiki are popular syntax highlighting libraries for web applications. Prism is lightweight and highly customizable, making it a popular choice for many developers. It uses regular expressions for tokenization, which can be faster but less accurate than Shiki's approach.

Shiki, on the other hand, uses VSCode's TextMate grammars for highlighting, resulting in more accurate and consistent output across different themes and languages. However, this comes at the cost of a larger bundle size and potentially slower performance.

Ultimately, the choice between Prism and Shiki depends on the specific needs of your project, balancing factors such as accuracy, performance, and customization requirements.

Pros of Rouge

• Written in Ruby, making it easier to integrate with Ruby-based projects
• Supports a wider range of languages (over 100)
• Designed for server-side syntax highlighting, which can be more efficient for static site generation

Cons of Rouge

• Slower performance compared to Prism, especially for client-side highlighting
• Less extensive theming options and customization features
• Smaller community and fewer plugins/extensions available

Code Comparison

Rouge (Ruby):

require 'rouge'
formatter = Rouge::Formatters::HTML.new
lexer = Rouge::Lexers::Ruby.new
formatter.format(lexer.lex("puts 'Hello, World!'"))

Prism (JavaScript):

const Prism = require('prismjs');
const code = "console.log('Hello, World!');";
const html = Prism.highlight(code, Prism.languages.javascript, 'javascript');

Both Rouge and Prism are popular syntax highlighting libraries, but they cater to different use cases. Rouge is better suited for Ruby-based projects and server-side highlighting, while Prism excels in client-side highlighting and offers more extensive customization options. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the ecosystem you're working in.

Pros of SyntaxHighlighter

• More extensive language support out of the box
• Better compatibility with older browsers
• Easier to customize themes and styles

Cons of SyntaxHighlighter

• Larger file size and slower performance
• Less active development and community support
• More complex setup and configuration

Code Comparison

SyntaxHighlighter:

<pre class="brush: js">
function helloWorld() {
  console.log("Hello, World!");
}
</pre>

Prism:

<pre><code class="language-javascript">
function helloWorld() {
  console.log("Hello, World!");
}
</code></pre>

Both SyntaxHighlighter and Prism are popular syntax highlighting libraries for web applications. SyntaxHighlighter offers more extensive language support and better compatibility with older browsers, making it suitable for projects with legacy requirements. It also provides easier customization options for themes and styles.

However, SyntaxHighlighter has a larger file size and slower performance compared to Prism. It also has less active development and community support, which may impact long-term maintenance and updates. Additionally, SyntaxHighlighter's setup and configuration process is more complex than Prism's.

Prism, on the other hand, is lightweight, performant, and has a more active community. It offers a simpler setup process and is more suitable for modern web applications. The code comparison shows the slight differences in markup between the two libraries, with Prism using a more straightforward approach.