Pros of node-typescript-boilerplate

• More recent updates and active maintenance
• Includes Jest for testing out of the box
• Supports both CommonJS and ES modules

Cons of node-typescript-boilerplate

• Less comprehensive documentation
• Fewer built-in tools for publishing and versioning
• No automatic changelog generation

Code Comparison

typescript-library-starter:

{
  "scripts": {
    "lint": "tslint  --project tsconfig.json -t codeFrame 'src/**/*.ts' 'test/**/*.ts'",
    "prebuild": "rimraf dist",
    "build": "tsc --module commonjs && rollup -c rollup.config.ts && typedoc --out docs --target es6 --theme minimal --mode file src"
  }
}

node-typescript-boilerplate:

{
  "scripts": {
    "start": "node build/src/main.js",
    "clean": "rimraf coverage build tmp",
    "build": "tsc -p tsconfig.json",
    "build:watch": "tsc -w -p tsconfig.json"
  }
}

The code comparison shows that typescript-library-starter has more complex build and lint scripts, while node-typescript-boilerplate keeps it simpler with basic TypeScript compilation and a start script.

Both projects provide solid foundations for TypeScript development, with typescript-library-starter offering more features for library creation and node-typescript-boilerplate focusing on simplicity and modern Node.js practices.

Pros of typescript-starter

• More comprehensive documentation and detailed README
• Includes support for both CommonJS and ES Modules
• Offers a wider range of configuration options and tooling

Cons of typescript-starter

• Potentially more complex setup due to additional features
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Slightly larger project size due to additional dependencies

Code Comparison

typescript-starter:

import { Example } from '../src/index';

describe('Example', () => {
  it('should work', () => {
    expect(new Example().foo).toBe('bar');
  });
});

typescript-library-starter:

import DummyClass from "../src/dummy-class"

/**
 * Dummy test
 */
describe("Dummy test", () => {
  it("works if true is truthy", () => {
    expect(true).toBeTruthy()
  })
})

Both repositories provide solid starting points for TypeScript projects, with typescript-starter offering more features and configuration options at the cost of increased complexity. typescript-library-starter is simpler and more straightforward, which may be preferable for smaller projects or beginners. The code comparison shows similar testing setups, with typescript-starter using a more modern import syntax and typescript-library-starter including a comment for the test description.

Pros of TypeScript-Node-Starter

• More comprehensive setup for full-stack Node.js applications
• Includes Express.js and MongoDB integration
• Provides authentication and user management features out-of-the-box

Cons of TypeScript-Node-Starter

• Larger and more complex, potentially overwhelming for simple projects
• Less focused on creating reusable libraries
• May include unnecessary features for some use cases

Code Comparison

TypeScript-Node-Starter (server setup):

import express from "express";
import compression from "compression";
import session from "express-session";
import bodyParser from "body-parser";
import lusca from "lusca";

typescript-library-starter (rollup config):

import typescript from 'rollup-plugin-typescript2'
import commonjs from 'rollup-plugin-commonjs'
import external from 'rollup-plugin-peer-deps-external'
import resolve from 'rollup-plugin-node-resolve'

TypeScript-Node-Starter is geared towards building full-stack Node.js applications with Express and MongoDB, offering a more comprehensive setup including authentication and user management. It's ideal for larger projects but may be overkill for simple libraries.

typescript-library-starter, on the other hand, focuses on creating reusable TypeScript libraries with a simpler setup. It's more suitable for developers looking to build and publish standalone packages or modules.

The code comparison highlights the different focus areas: TypeScript-Node-Starter sets up a server with various middleware, while typescript-library-starter configures Rollup for building and bundling a library.

Pros of simple-typescript-starter

• Simpler setup with fewer dependencies, making it easier to understand and maintain
• Faster initial setup and build times due to its lightweight nature
• More flexible and customizable, allowing developers to add only what they need

Cons of simple-typescript-starter

• Lacks some advanced features and tooling provided by typescript-library-starter
• May require more manual configuration for certain development tasks
• Less comprehensive documentation and community support

Code Comparison

simple-typescript-starter (tsconfig.json):

{
  "compilerOptions": {
    "target": "es5",
    "module": "commonjs",
    "lib": ["es2015", "dom"],
    "strict": true,
    "esModuleInterop": true
  }
}

typescript-library-starter (tsconfig.json):

{
  "compilerOptions": {
    "moduleResolution": "node",
    "target": "es2017",
    "module": "es2015",
    "lib": ["es2015", "es2016", "es2017", "dom"],
    "strict": true,
    "sourceMap": true,
    "declaration": true,
    "allowSyntheticDefaultImports": true,
    "experimentalDecorators": true,
    "emitDecoratorMetadata": true,
    "declarationDir": "dist/types",
    "outDir": "dist/lib",
    "typeRoots": ["node_modules/@types"]
  }
}

The code comparison shows that typescript-library-starter has a more comprehensive and feature-rich TypeScript configuration, while simple-typescript-starter keeps it minimal and straightforward.