tampermonkey

Pros of Greasemonkey

• Open-source and community-driven development
• Tighter integration with Firefox, its primary browser
• Simpler and more lightweight codebase

Cons of Greasemonkey

• Limited cross-browser compatibility (primarily Firefox)
• Less frequent updates and slower feature adoption
• Smaller user base and fewer available scripts

Code Comparison

Greasemonkey script header:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Greasemonkey Script
// @version  1
// @grant    none
// ==/UserScript==

Tampermonkey script header:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Tampermonkey Script
// @version  1
// @grant    GM_xmlhttpRequest
// @run-at   document-end
// ==/UserScript==

The main difference in the code examples is that Tampermonkey offers more granular control over script execution and additional built-in functions (like GM_xmlhttpRequest), while Greasemonkey tends to have a simpler structure.

Tampermonkey generally provides more features and better cross-browser support, making it a popular choice for users who need flexibility and advanced functionality. Greasemonkey, on the other hand, remains a solid option for Firefox users who prefer a more streamlined and open-source solution.

Pros of Violentmonkey

• Open-source and more transparent development process
• Lighter on system resources, potentially better performance
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including Firefox for Android

Cons of Violentmonkey

• Smaller user base and community compared to Tampermonkey
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower bug fixes

Code Comparison

Tampermonkey:

// @grant GM_xmlhttpRequest
GM_xmlhttpRequest({
  method: "GET",
  url: "https://example.com",
  onload: function(response) {
    console.log(response.responseText);
  }
});

Violentmonkey:

// @grant GM.xmlHttpRequest
GM.xmlHttpRequest({
  method: "GET",
  url: "https://example.com",
  onload: function(response) {
    console.log(response.responseText);
  }
});

The main difference in the code is the use of GM_xmlhttpRequest in Tampermonkey versus GM.xmlHttpRequest in Violentmonkey. Violentmonkey follows the newer GM4 API standard, while Tampermonkey supports both old and new API styles for better compatibility with existing scripts.

Pros of Stylus

• Focused specifically on CSS styling, making it more lightweight and efficient for this purpose
• Offers a user-friendly interface for creating and managing custom styles
• Supports importing styles from popular userstyle websites like userstyles.org

Cons of Stylus

• Limited to CSS modifications, lacking the versatility of full JavaScript scripting
• Smaller user base and community compared to Tampermonkey
• Fewer advanced features for complex web page modifications

Code Comparison

Stylus (CSS-based styling):

body {
  background-color: #000;
  color: #fff;
}

Tampermonkey (JavaScript-based scripting):

// ==UserScript==
// @name         Custom Style
// @match        https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#000';
    document.body.style.color = '#fff';
})();

While Stylus focuses on CSS-based styling, Tampermonkey allows for more complex JavaScript-based modifications. Stylus is ideal for users primarily interested in customizing website appearances, while Tampermonkey offers broader functionality for advanced web page manipulation and automation.

Pros of jszip

• Focused library for creating, reading, and editing ZIP files in JavaScript
• Lightweight and can be used in both browser and Node.js environments
• Supports various compression methods and encryption

Cons of jszip

• Limited to ZIP file operations, unlike Tampermonkey's broader userscript capabilities
• Requires additional setup and integration for web-based use cases
• Less active community and fewer updates compared to Tampermonkey

Code Comparison

jszip:

var zip = new JSZip();
zip.file("Hello.txt", "Hello World\n");
zip.generateAsync({type:"blob"}).then(function(content) {
    saveAs(content, "example.zip");
});

Tampermonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @match    https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    console.log("Hello from Tampermonkey!");
})();

While jszip focuses on ZIP file manipulation, Tampermonkey is designed for injecting and running custom scripts on web pages. The code examples highlight their different purposes: jszip for file compression and Tampermonkey for webpage modification.

Pros of TinyColor

• Lightweight and focused on color manipulation
• Easy to use API for color conversion and modification
• Supports various color formats (RGB, HSL, HEX, etc.)

Cons of TinyColor

• Limited functionality compared to Tampermonkey's userscript capabilities
• Not designed for browser extension or userscript management
• Lacks features for DOM manipulation or cross-site scripting

Code Comparison

TinyColor:

var color = tinycolor("red");
var lighterColor = color.lighten(20);
var rgbColor = lighterColor.toRgbString();

Tampermonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @match    https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

console.log("Hello, world!");

While TinyColor focuses on color manipulation, Tampermonkey is designed for creating and managing userscripts that can modify web pages. TinyColor is more suitable for projects requiring color-related operations, whereas Tampermonkey is ideal for enhancing browser functionality and customizing web experiences.

Pros of Modernizr

• Lightweight and modular, allowing developers to include only needed features
• Extensive feature detection for HTML5 and CSS3 capabilities
• Well-maintained and widely adopted in the web development community

Cons of Modernizr

• Primarily focused on feature detection, not user script management
• May require additional setup and configuration for optimal use
• Less suitable for end-users looking to customize their browsing experience

Code Comparison

Modernizr:

Modernizr.on('webp', function(result) {
  if (result) {
    // Browser supports WebP
  } else {
    // Browser doesn't support WebP
  }
});

Tampermonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @match    https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    // Your custom JavaScript code here
})();

While Modernizr focuses on feature detection and browser capability testing, Tampermonkey is designed for injecting custom scripts into web pages. Modernizr is more suited for web developers ensuring cross-browser compatibility, whereas Tampermonkey caters to users who want to modify website behavior. The code examples highlight their different purposes: Modernizr checks for specific features, while Tampermonkey allows for custom script injection.