Pros of weui

• More comprehensive UI component library for web applications
• Supports multiple frameworks (vanilla JS, React, Vue)
• Better suited for cross-platform web development

Cons of weui

• Larger file size and potentially more complex implementation
• May require additional setup for specific frameworks
• Less optimized for WeChat Mini Program development

Code Comparison

weui (HTML/CSS):

<a href="javascript:;" class="weui-btn weui-btn_primary">Primary Button</a>
<a href="javascript:;" class="weui-btn weui-btn_default">Default Button</a>

weui-wxss (WXML/WXSS):

<button class="weui-btn" type="primary">Primary Button</button>
<button class="weui-btn" type="default">Default Button</button>

The weui-wxss code is more specific to WeChat Mini Program syntax, while weui uses standard HTML elements with CSS classes.

weui-wxss is tailored specifically for WeChat Mini Programs, offering a streamlined and optimized solution for this platform. It has a smaller file size and is easier to implement in Mini Program projects. However, it lacks the versatility of weui for broader web application development across different frameworks and platforms.

Both libraries provide a consistent WeChat-style UI, but developers should choose based on their specific project requirements and target platform.

Pros of vant-weapp

• More comprehensive component library with over 70 components
• Better documentation and examples for each component
• Active development and frequent updates

Cons of vant-weapp

• Larger file size due to more components
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less native WeChat UI feel compared to weui-wxss

Code Comparison

weui-wxss:

.weui-btn {
  position: relative;
  display: block;
  margin-left: auto;
  margin-right: auto;
  padding-left: 14px;
  padding-right: 14px;
}

vant-weapp:

.van-button {
  position: relative;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  height: 44px;
  padding: 0;
  font-size: 16px;
  line-height: 42px;
}

The code comparison shows that vant-weapp uses a more modern CSS approach with box-sizing and specific height/line-height values, while weui-wxss focuses on basic positioning and padding. vant-weapp's approach may offer more consistent styling across different components but could be less flexible for custom designs.

Both libraries provide essential UI components for WeChat Mini Programs, but vant-weapp offers a more extensive set of components and better documentation. weui-wxss, being developed by Tencent, provides a more native WeChat look and feel. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired UI aesthetics, and developer preferences.

Pros of wux-weapp

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of UI elements
• Better documentation and examples for each component
• Regular updates and active community support

Cons of wux-weapp

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API and customization options
• Less native-looking UI compared to WeUI's design philosophy

Code Comparison

weui-wxss:

<view class="weui-cells">
  <view class="weui-cell">
    <view class="weui-cell__bd">Cell Content</view>
  </view>
</view>

wux-weapp:

<wux-cell-group>
  <wux-cell title="Cell Content"></wux-cell>
</wux-cell-group>

The code comparison shows that wux-weapp uses custom components with more abstracted properties, while weui-wxss relies on class-based styling with a structure closer to standard HTML.

wux-weapp offers more flexibility and features out of the box, but weui-wxss provides a simpler, more lightweight approach that closely follows WeChat's design guidelines. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired customization level, and performance considerations.

Pros of iview-weapp

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of UI elements
• Better documentation and examples for each component
• Regular updates and active community support

Cons of iview-weapp

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Less native-looking components compared to WeUI's design philosophy
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to the framework

Code Comparison

iview-weapp:

<i-button type="primary" bind:click="handleClick">Click me</i-button>
<i-input v-model="value" placeholder="Enter text" />
<i-cell-group>
    <i-cell title="Cell Title" value="Content"></i-cell>
</i-cell-group>

weui-wxss:

<button class="weui-btn weui-btn_primary" bindtap="handleClick">Click me</button>
<input class="weui-input" placeholder="Enter text" bindinput="handleInput" />
<view class="weui-cells">
    <view class="weui-cell">
        <view class="weui-cell__bd">Cell Title</view>
        <view class="weui-cell__ft">Content</view>
    </view>
</view>

Both libraries offer solutions for creating UI components in WeChat Mini Programs, but iview-weapp provides a more extensive set of pre-built components with easier implementation, while weui-wxss offers a more lightweight and native-looking approach. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of ant-design-mobile

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of UI elements
• Better documentation and examples for developers
• Active development and frequent updates

Cons of ant-design-mobile

• Larger file size and potentially slower performance
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

ant-design-mobile:

import { Button } from 'antd-mobile'

const App = () => (
  <Button color='primary' size='large'>
    Submit
  </Button>
)

weui-wxss:

<button class="weui-btn weui-btn_primary">
  Submit
</button>

Summary

ant-design-mobile offers a more feature-rich and well-documented UI library for mobile web applications, while weui-wxss provides a simpler, lightweight solution specifically designed for WeChat Mini Programs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as platform compatibility, performance needs, and desired customization options.

Both libraries aim to provide a consistent and user-friendly mobile UI experience, but they cater to different ecosystems and development approaches. Consider factors like project scope, target audience, and development team familiarity when deciding between these two options.