Pros of Pygments

• Extensive language support with over 500 lexers
• Well-established and widely used in various projects and platforms
• Highly customizable with numerous output formats and styles

Cons of Pygments

• Written in Python, which may be slower compared to Go-based Chroma
• Can be more complex to set up and use, especially for non-Python projects

Code Comparison

Pygments:

from pygments import highlight
from pygments.lexers import PythonLexer
from pygments.formatters import HtmlFormatter

code = 'print("Hello, World!")'
print(highlight(code, PythonLexer(), HtmlFormatter()))

Chroma:

import (
    "github.com/alecthomas/chroma"
    "github.com/alecthomas/chroma/formatters/html"
    "github.com/alecthomas/chroma/lexers"
)

lexer := lexers.Get("python")
formatter := html.New()
iterator, _ := lexer.Tokenise(nil, `print("Hello, World!")`)
formatter.Format(os.Stdout, styles.Get("monokai"), iterator)

Both Pygments and Chroma are powerful syntax highlighting libraries, each with its own strengths. Pygments offers broader language support and is more established, while Chroma provides potentially better performance for Go-based projects and simpler integration for non-Python environments.

Pros of bat

• Standalone command-line tool for syntax highlighting and file viewing
• Integrates with Git for showing file changes
• Supports automatic paging for large files

Cons of bat

• Limited to command-line usage, not easily integrated into other applications
• Fewer supported languages compared to Chroma
• Requires installation as a separate tool

Code Comparison

bat (Rust):

pub fn highlight_file(path: &Path) -> Result<()> {
    let mut highlighter = Highlighter::new();
    highlighter.load_syntax_set();
    highlighter.highlight_file(path)?;
    Ok(())
}

Chroma (Go):

func Highlight(source, lexer, formatter string) (string, error) {
    l := lexers.Get(lexer)
    f := formatters.Get(formatter)
    return f.Format(l.Tokenise(nil, source))
}

bat is a command-line tool focused on file viewing with syntax highlighting, while Chroma is a library for syntax highlighting that can be integrated into various applications. bat offers features like Git integration and automatic paging, making it more suitable for direct file viewing. Chroma, on the other hand, provides a more flexible API for syntax highlighting that can be used in different contexts, supporting a wider range of programming languages. The code comparison shows that bat uses a more object-oriented approach with a Highlighter struct, while Chroma employs a functional style with separate lexer and formatter components.

Pros of Rouge

• Written in Ruby, making it a natural choice for Ruby-based projects
• Extensive language support with over 100 lexers
• Well-established and widely used in the Ruby ecosystem

Cons of Rouge

• Generally slower performance compared to Chroma
• Less flexible API for customization and extension
• Limited support for non-Ruby environments

Code Comparison

Rouge:

require 'rouge'
source = 'puts "Hello, world!"'
formatter = Rouge::Formatters::HTML.new
lexer = Rouge::Lexers::Ruby.new
formatter.format(lexer.lex(source))

Chroma:

import "github.com/alecthomas/chroma"
source := `fmt.Println("Hello, world!")`
lexer := lexers.Get("go")
formatter := formatters.HTML()
iterator, _ := lexer.Tokenise(nil, source)
formatter.Format(os.Stdout, styles.GitHub, iterator)

Both libraries provide syntax highlighting capabilities, but Chroma offers a more performant and flexible solution, especially for non-Ruby projects. Rouge excels in Ruby-centric environments and has broader language support, while Chroma provides better performance and easier integration with various programming languages.

Pros of Prism

• Widely adopted and well-established in the web development community
• Extensive language support with a large number of available plugins
• Easy integration with various web frameworks and build tools

Cons of Prism

• JavaScript-based, which may not be suitable for server-side or non-web applications
• Can be relatively heavy for simple syntax highlighting needs
• Requires additional setup for server-side rendering scenarios

Code Comparison

Prism (JavaScript):

Prism.highlightAll();

Chroma (Go):

lexer := lexers.Get("go")
formatter := formatters.Get("html")
iterator, _ := lexer.Tokenise(nil, sourceCode)
formatter.Format(w, style, iterator)

Key Differences

• Chroma is written in Go, making it more suitable for server-side applications and command-line tools
• Prism is primarily designed for client-side web use, with a focus on ease of integration in web projects
• Chroma offers more flexibility in terms of output formats and customization options
• Prism has a larger ecosystem of plugins and themes due to its widespread adoption in web development

Both libraries provide syntax highlighting capabilities, but they cater to different use cases and environments. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and the target platform.

Pros of highlight.js

• Wider language support with 189+ languages and 94 styles
• Extensive browser compatibility, including older versions
• Large community and ecosystem with numerous plugins and integrations

Cons of highlight.js

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• JavaScript-based, potentially less performant for server-side rendering
• More complex setup for advanced customization

Code Comparison

highlight.js:

<pre><code class="language-python">
def greet(name):
    print(f"Hello, {name}!")
</code></pre>
<script>hljs.highlightAll();</script>

Chroma:

lexer := lexers.Get("python")
iterator, _ := lexer.Tokenise(nil, sourceCode)
formatter := formatters.Get("html")
formatter.Format(os.Stdout, styles.Get("monokai"), iterator)

Key Differences

• Language: highlight.js is written in JavaScript, while Chroma is written in Go
• Usage: highlight.js is primarily client-side, Chroma is server-side
• Performance: Chroma may offer better performance for server-side rendering
• Customization: Chroma provides more fine-grained control over highlighting
• Integration: highlight.js is easier to integrate into web projects

Both libraries are popular choices for syntax highlighting, with highlight.js being more widely used in web development and Chroma offering advantages for server-side applications and performance-critical scenarios.

Pros of CodeMirror 5

• More feature-rich and mature, with a wide range of built-in modes and addons
• Designed specifically for in-browser code editing, offering a complete solution
• Extensive documentation and large community support

Cons of CodeMirror 5

• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage
• More complex setup and configuration compared to Chroma
• JavaScript-based, which may not be ideal for all use cases

Code Comparison

Chroma (Go):

lexer := lexers.Get("go")
iterator, _ := lexer.Tokenise(nil, sourceCode)

CodeMirror 5 (JavaScript):

var editor = CodeMirror.fromTextArea(document.getElementById("code"), {
  mode: "javascript",
  lineNumbers: true
});

Summary

CodeMirror 5 is a comprehensive in-browser code editor with extensive features and community support, while Chroma is a lightweight syntax highlighter written in Go. CodeMirror 5 offers a complete editing solution but may be overkill for simple highlighting tasks. Chroma is more focused on syntax highlighting and can be easily integrated into various applications, especially those written in Go.