Pros of folding-cell

• More versatile animation options, allowing for complex folding effects
• Supports both Swift and Objective-C, providing wider compatibility
• Includes a demo app for easy testing and implementation

Cons of folding-cell

• More complex implementation compared to Euclid's simpler approach
• Requires more setup and configuration to achieve desired effects
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

folding-cell:

let cell = FoldingCell()
cell.itemCount = 4
cell.backViewColor = .blue
cell.foregroundView = customView
cell.setup(frame: frame)

Euclid:

let animation = EuclidAnimation(type: .rotation)
animation.duration = 0.5
animation.fromValue = 0
animation.toValue = CGFloat.pi
view.euclidAnimate(animation)

Both libraries offer unique animation capabilities for iOS applications. folding-cell provides more complex folding animations with greater customization options, while Euclid focuses on simpler, more straightforward animations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of animation complexity needed.

Pros of expanding-collection

• More advanced and visually appealing animations
• Supports both portrait and landscape orientations
• Includes a demo app for easy testing and implementation

Cons of expanding-collection

• More complex implementation due to advanced features
• Requires iOS 9.0 or later, limiting compatibility with older devices
• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage

Code Comparison

expanding-collection:

let expandingCollection = ExpandingCollection(cells: cells)
expandingCollection.cellSize = CGSize(width: 250, height: 350)
expandingCollection.delegate = self
view.addSubview(expandingCollection)

Euclid:

let euclid = Euclid(frame: view.bounds)
euclid.dataSource = self
euclid.delegate = self
view.addSubview(euclid)

Both repositories provide iOS UI components for creating interactive and visually appealing collection views. Expanding-collection offers more advanced animations and features, but at the cost of increased complexity and resource requirements. Euclid, on the other hand, is simpler to implement and has broader device compatibility. The code comparison shows that expanding-collection requires more configuration, while Euclid has a more straightforward setup process. Developers should choose based on their project's specific needs and target audience.

Pros of animated-tab-bar

• More customizable animations and transitions
• Supports both Swift and Objective-C
• Actively maintained with recent updates

Cons of animated-tab-bar

• Larger file size and potentially higher memory usage
• Steeper learning curve for implementation
• Limited to tab bar animations only

Code Comparison

animated-tab-bar:

let animatedTabBar = RAMAnimatedTabBarController()
let item1 = RAMAnimatedTabBarItem(title: "Home", image: UIImage(named: "home"), tag: 1)
item1.animation = RAMBounceAnimation()
animatedTabBar.viewControllers = [homeVC]
animatedTabBar.setViewControllers([homeVC], animated: true)

Euclid:

let button = EUButton(size: .small)
button.setTitle("Button", for: .normal)
button.setTitleColor(.white, for: .normal)
button.backgroundColor = .blue
view.addSubview(button)

Summary

animated-tab-bar focuses specifically on tab bar animations with a wide range of customization options, while Euclid provides a broader set of UI components. animated-tab-bar offers more complex animations but may require more resources and setup time. Euclid, on the other hand, provides simpler implementations for various UI elements, making it easier to use for general interface design. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and the desired level of animation complexity.

Pros of paper-onboarding

• More recent updates and active maintenance
• Supports both Swift and Objective-C
• Includes a demo app for easy testing and implementation

Cons of paper-onboarding

• Limited to onboarding screens, less versatile than Euclid
• Fewer stars and forks on GitHub, potentially indicating less community adoption
• Documentation is less comprehensive compared to Euclid

Code Comparison

Euclid (Objective-C):

EUCAnimationController *animationController = [EUCAnimationController new];
animationController.duration = 0.8;
animationController.presenting = YES;
animationController.animationType = EUCAnimationTypeCircle;

paper-onboarding (Swift):

let onboarding = PaperOnboarding()
onboarding.dataSource = self
onboarding.delegate = self
view.addSubview(onboarding)

Both libraries offer simple implementation, but paper-onboarding's code is more concise and modern due to its Swift support. Euclid provides more animation options, while paper-onboarding focuses specifically on onboarding flows.

paper-onboarding is ideal for projects requiring quick and easy onboarding screen implementation, whereas Euclid offers more flexibility for various custom animations and transitions throughout an app.

Pros of circle-menu

• More customizable appearance with options for button colors, icons, and animations
• Supports both Swift and Objective-C
• Includes a demo app for easy testing and implementation

Cons of circle-menu

• Limited to circular menu layout, less flexible than Euclid's grid-based approach
• Fewer stars and forks on GitHub, potentially indicating less community support
• Last updated in 2019, while Euclid was updated more recently

Code Comparison

circle-menu implementation:

let circleMenu = CircleMenu(
    frame: view.bounds,
    normalIcon:"icon_menu",
    selectedIcon:"icon_close",
    buttonsCount: 4,
    duration: 4,
    distance: 120)
view.addSubview(circleMenu)

Euclid implementation:

let buttonViewController = ButtonViewController()
buttonViewController.delegate = self
buttonViewController.dataSource = self
view.addSubview(buttonViewController.view)

Both libraries offer simple implementation, but Euclid provides more flexibility through its delegate and data source patterns, allowing for dynamic content and layout customization.