Pros of CodeMirror 5

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger ecosystem of plugins and extensions
• Better performance for handling large documents and syntax highlighting
• Extensive language support out-of-the-box

Cons of CodeMirror 5

• Less flexible for custom document structures and collaborative editing
• More complex API and configuration compared to ProseMirror
• Limited support for rich text editing features

Code Comparison

ProseMirror:

import {EditorState} from "prosemirror-state"
import {EditorView} from "prosemirror-view"
import {Schema} from "prosemirror-model"

let state = EditorState.create({schema: new Schema({/* ... */})})
let view = new EditorView(document.body, {state})

CodeMirror 5:

import CodeMirror from 'codemirror'
import 'codemirror/mode/javascript/javascript'

let editor = CodeMirror(document.body, {
  value: "function myScript() {\n\treturn 100;\n}",
  mode: "javascript"
})

Both libraries offer powerful text editing capabilities, but they serve different purposes. ProseMirror is more suited for rich text editing and custom document structures, while CodeMirror 5 excels in code editing with syntax highlighting and language support.

Pros of Quill

• Easier to set up and use out of the box
• More extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and ecosystem

Cons of Quill

• Less flexible and customizable than ProseMirror
• Limited support for complex document structures
• Slower performance for large documents

Code Comparison

Quill initialization:

var quill = new Quill('#editor', {
  theme: 'snow'
});

ProseMirror initialization:

let view = new EditorView(document.querySelector("#editor"), {
  state: EditorState.create({
    schema: mySchema
  })
});

Both ProseMirror and Quill are powerful rich text editors for web applications. ProseMirror offers more flexibility and customization options, making it suitable for complex document editing needs. It uses a modular architecture that allows developers to build custom editing experiences.

Quill, on the other hand, provides a more straightforward setup and is easier to use for simpler editing requirements. It has better documentation and a larger community, which can be beneficial for developers who need quick solutions and support.

ProseMirror's performance is generally better for large documents, while Quill may struggle with extensive content. However, Quill's simplicity and out-of-the-box features make it a popular choice for many projects that don't require advanced customization.

Pros of Draft.js

• Simpler API and easier learning curve for React developers
• Better integration with React ecosystem and components
• More lightweight and focused on core text editing functionality

Cons of Draft.js

• Less flexible for complex document structures
• Limited built-in features compared to ProseMirror
• Lack of active development and maintenance (archived repository)

Code Comparison

ProseMirror example:

import {EditorState} from "prosemirror-state"
import {EditorView} from "prosemirror-view"
import {Schema} from "prosemirror-model"

let state = EditorState.create({schema: new Schema({/* ... */})})
let view = new EditorView(document.body, {state})

Draft.js example:

import {Editor, EditorState} from 'draft-js';

const [editorState, setEditorState] = useState(EditorState.createEmpty());

<Editor editorState={editorState} onChange={setEditorState} />

Both ProseMirror and Draft.js are powerful rich text editing frameworks, but they cater to different needs. ProseMirror offers more flexibility and features for complex document structures, while Draft.js provides a simpler API that integrates well with React applications. ProseMirror is actively maintained and developed, whereas Draft.js is now archived by Facebook. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with React.

Pros of Slate

• More flexible and customizable architecture
• Easier to implement complex, nested document structures
• Better support for collaborative editing

Cons of Slate

• Steeper learning curve due to its flexibility
• Less mature ecosystem compared to ProseMirror
• May require more boilerplate code for basic functionality

Code Comparison

ProseMirror example:

const view = new EditorView(document.body, {
  state: EditorState.create({
    doc: schema.node("doc", null, [
      schema.node("paragraph", null, [schema.text("Hello ProseMirror")])
    ]),
    plugins: [keymap(baseKeymap)]
  })
})

Slate example:

const editor = withReact(createEditor())
const [value, setValue] = useState([
  {
    type: 'paragraph',
    children: [{ text: 'Hello Slate' }],
  },
])

return <Slate editor={editor} value={value} onChange={setValue}>
  <Editable />
</Slate>

Both ProseMirror and Slate are powerful rich text editing frameworks, but they differ in their approach and architecture. ProseMirror offers a more opinionated structure, while Slate provides greater flexibility at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of TinyMCE

• More feature-rich out of the box, with a wide range of plugins and customization options
• Easier to set up and use for non-technical users
• Better browser compatibility, especially for older versions

Cons of TinyMCE

• Larger file size and potentially slower performance
• Less flexible for complex custom editing solutions
• More challenging to extend or modify core functionality

Code Comparison

TinyMCE initialization:

tinymce.init({
  selector: '#myTextarea',
  plugins: 'link image table',
  toolbar: 'undo redo | formatselect | bold italic'
});

ProseMirror setup:

import {EditorState} from "prosemirror-state"
import {EditorView} from "prosemirror-view"
import {schema} from "prosemirror-schema-basic"

let state = EditorState.create({schema})
let view = new EditorView(document.body, {state})

TinyMCE provides a more straightforward setup with configuration options, while ProseMirror requires more manual setup but offers greater flexibility in defining the editor's behavior and structure.

Pros of CKEditor 5

• More comprehensive out-of-the-box features and UI components
• Extensive documentation and learning resources
• Strong focus on accessibility and internationalization

Cons of CKEditor 5

• Larger bundle size and potentially heavier performance impact
• Less flexible for custom schema and document structure
• Steeper learning curve for deep customizations

Code Comparison

CKEditor 5:

import ClassicEditor from '@ckeditor/ckeditor5-build-classic';

ClassicEditor
    .create(document.querySelector('#editor'))
    .then(editor => {
        console.log('Editor was initialized', editor);
    })
    .catch(error => {
        console.error(error);
    });

ProseMirror:

import {EditorState} from "prosemirror-state"
import {EditorView} from "prosemirror-view"
import {schema} from "prosemirror-schema-basic"

let state = EditorState.create({schema})
let view = new EditorView(document.querySelector("#editor"), {state})

Both CKEditor 5 and ProseMirror are powerful rich text editing solutions, but they cater to different needs. CKEditor 5 offers a more complete package with ready-to-use features, while ProseMirror provides a flexible foundation for building custom editors. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as the level of customization needed and the desired out-of-the-box functionality.