Pros of Toasty

• More customization options, including custom fonts and icon tinting
• Supports dark theme out of the box
• Smaller library size, potentially reducing app bloat

Cons of Toasty

• Less intuitive API for creating toasts compared to FancyToast-Android
• Fewer pre-defined toast styles (success, error, etc.) than FancyToast-Android
• Limited animation options compared to FancyToast-Android

Code Comparison

FancyToast-Android:

FancyToast.makeText(this, "Hello World!", FancyToast.LENGTH_LONG, FancyToast.SUCCESS, true).show();

Toasty:

Toasty.success(getApplicationContext(), "Hello World!", Toast.LENGTH_SHORT, true).show();

Both libraries offer similar functionality for creating custom toasts, but FancyToast-Android provides a more familiar API that closely resembles Android's native Toast class. Toasty, on the other hand, requires specifying the toast type (success, error, etc.) as a method call, which may be less intuitive for some developers.

FancyToast-Android offers more pre-defined styles and animation options, making it easier to create visually appealing toasts quickly. However, Toasty provides more fine-grained control over customization, including the ability to set custom fonts and tint icons.

Overall, the choice between these libraries depends on the specific needs of your project and personal preference for API design.

Pros of StyleableToast

• More customization options, including custom fonts and corner radius
• Supports Kotlin DSL for easier configuration
• Smaller library size and fewer dependencies

Cons of StyleableToast

• Lacks some pre-defined styles available in FancyToast-Android
• Does not support custom animations out of the box

Code Comparison

FancyToast-Android:

FancyToast.makeText(this, "Hello World!", FancyToast.LENGTH_LONG, FancyToast.SUCCESS, true).show()

StyleableToast:

StyleableToast.Builder(context)
    .text("Hello World!")
    .textColor(Color.WHITE)
    .backgroundColor(Color.GREEN)
    .show()

Both libraries offer easy-to-use APIs for creating custom toasts, but StyleableToast provides more granular control over individual elements. FancyToast-Android focuses on pre-defined styles, while StyleableToast allows for more detailed customization.

StyleableToast's Kotlin DSL support makes it more convenient for Kotlin developers, while FancyToast-Android's pre-defined styles can be quicker to implement for common use cases.

Overall, StyleableToast is better suited for projects requiring extensive toast customization, while FancyToast-Android may be preferable for quick implementation of common toast styles.

Pros of SuperToasts

• More customization options for toast appearance and behavior
• Supports additional toast types like progress and button toasts
• Includes a manager class for handling multiple toasts

Cons of SuperToasts

• Less actively maintained (last update was several years ago)
• More complex implementation compared to FancyToast-Android
• Larger library size due to additional features

Code Comparison

FancyToast-Android:

FancyToast.makeText(this, "Hello World!", FancyToast.LENGTH_LONG, FancyToast.SUCCESS, true).show();

SuperToasts:

SuperToast.create(this, "Hello World!", Style.DURATION_LONG)
    .setBackground(Style.GREEN)
    .setAnimations(Style.ANIMATIONS_POP)
    .show();

Both libraries offer simple ways to create and display custom toasts, but SuperToasts provides more granular control over toast properties. FancyToast-Android uses a more concise syntax, while SuperToasts allows for method chaining to set various options.

FancyToast-Android is more lightweight and easier to implement for basic use cases, making it suitable for projects that need quick and simple custom toasts. SuperToasts, on the other hand, offers more advanced features and customization options, making it a better choice for projects requiring complex toast functionality.

Pros of TastyToast

• Offers more toast types, including confusing, warning, and default styles
• Includes animated icons for each toast type, enhancing visual appeal
• Smaller library size, potentially reducing app bloat

Cons of TastyToast

• Less customization options compared to FancyToast-Android
• Limited to predefined styles, while FancyToast-Android allows for more flexibility
• Less active maintenance and updates

Code Comparison

TastyToast:

TastyToast.makeText(getApplicationContext(), "Hello World!", TastyToast.LENGTH_LONG, TastyToast.SUCCESS);

FancyToast-Android:

FancyToast.makeText(this, "Hello World!", FancyToast.LENGTH_LONG, FancyToast.SUCCESS, true).show();

Both libraries offer similar ease of use, with TastyToast requiring slightly less code. However, FancyToast-Android provides more customization options through additional parameters and methods.

TastyToast focuses on predefined styles with animated icons, making it ideal for quick implementation of visually appealing toasts. FancyToast-Android, on the other hand, offers greater flexibility in terms of customization, allowing developers to tailor the toast appearance to their specific needs.

While TastyToast has a smaller footprint, FancyToast-Android compensates with more frequent updates and active maintenance, potentially providing better long-term support and compatibility.