Pros of G6

• More versatile and flexible for creating various types of graphs and charts
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier implementation
• Larger and more active community, leading to frequent updates and improvements

Cons of G6

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features and options
• May be overkill for simpler graph editing tasks
• Requires more manual configuration for specific use cases

Code Comparison

G6:

import G6 from '@antv/g6';

const graph = new G6.Graph({
  container: 'mountNode',
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

graph.data(data);
graph.render();

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

<GGEditor>
  <Flow style={{ width: 800, height: 600 }} data={data} />
</GGEditor>

G6 provides a more programmatic approach, allowing fine-grained control over graph creation and rendering. GGEditor, on the other hand, offers a more declarative, React-based implementation, which can be easier to integrate into existing React applications but may offer less flexibility for complex customizations.

Pros of mxgraph

• More mature and feature-rich library with extensive documentation
• Supports a wider range of diagram types and customization options
• Larger community and ecosystem, with more examples and third-party resources

Cons of mxgraph

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive API
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Less focus on modern web development practices and frameworks

Code Comparison

mxgraph:

var graph = new mxGraph(container);
var parent = graph.getDefaultParent();
graph.getModel().beginUpdate();
try {
  var v1 = graph.insertVertex(parent, null, 'Hello,', 20, 20, 80, 30);
  var v2 = graph.insertVertex(parent, null, 'World!', 200, 150, 80, 30);
  var e1 = graph.insertEdge(parent, null, '', v1, v2);
} finally {
  graph.getModel().endUpdate();
}

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

const data = {
  nodes: [{ id: 'node1', label: 'Node 1' }, { id: 'node2', label: 'Node 2' }],
  edges: [{ source: 'node1', target: 'node2' }],
};

<GGEditor>
  <Flow data={data} />
</GGEditor>

The code comparison shows that mxgraph requires more setup and explicit graph manipulation, while GGEditor offers a more declarative and React-friendly approach to creating diagrams.

Pros of jsPlumb

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports a broader range of diagram types and use cases
• Offers both community and commercial versions with extensive documentation

Cons of jsPlumb

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May be overkill for simpler diagram requirements
• Commercial version required for some advanced features

Code Comparison

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

<GGEditor>
  <Flow data={data} />
</GGEditor>

jsPlumb:

import { jsPlumb } from 'jsplumb';

const instance = jsPlumb.getInstance();
instance.connect({
  source: 'element1',
  target: 'element2'
});

Key Differences

• GGEditor is focused on graph and flow chart editing, while jsPlumb is more versatile for various diagramming needs
• GGEditor provides a more React-centric approach, whereas jsPlumb is framework-agnostic
• jsPlumb offers more fine-grained control over connections and their appearance
• GGEditor includes built-in support for common graph operations like undo/redo, while jsPlumb requires custom implementation

Both libraries have their strengths, with GGEditor being more suitable for quick implementation of graph editors in React applications, and jsPlumb offering more flexibility and control for complex diagramming needs across different frameworks.

Pros of react-diagrams

• More active development and maintenance
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Highly customizable with a modular architecture

Cons of react-diagrams

• Steeper learning curve due to its flexibility
• Less out-of-the-box functionality compared to GGEditor

Code Comparison

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

<GGEditor>
  <Flow data={data} />
</GGEditor>

react-diagrams:

import createEngine, { DiagramModel } from '@projectstorm/react-diagrams';

const engine = createEngine();
const model = new DiagramModel();
engine.setModel(model);

<DiagramEngine engine={engine} />

Both libraries offer React-based diagramming solutions, but react-diagrams provides more granular control over the diagram elements and behavior. GGEditor offers a more streamlined approach with pre-built components, while react-diagrams requires more setup but allows for greater customization.

react-diagrams is better suited for complex, highly customized diagramming needs, while GGEditor may be more appropriate for simpler use cases or rapid prototyping. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of control you need over the diagramming functionality.

Pros of Rete

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for a wider range of graph types and use cases
• Better documentation and examples, making it easier for developers to get started
• Larger and more active community, resulting in frequent updates and improvements

Cons of Rete

• Steeper learning curve due to its flexibility and more complex API
• Less out-of-the-box functionality, requiring more setup and configuration
• May require more performance optimization for large-scale graphs

Code Comparison

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

<GGEditor>
  <Flow data={data} />
</GGEditor>

Rete:

import Rete from "rete";
import ReactRenderPlugin from "rete-react-render-plugin";

const editor = new Rete.NodeEditor("demo@0.1.0", container);
editor.use(ReactRenderPlugin);

Summary

GGEditor is a more opinionated and easier-to-use solution for specific graph types, while Rete offers greater flexibility and customization options. GGEditor may be better suited for quick implementations of common graph types, whereas Rete shines in scenarios requiring unique or complex graph structures. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the developer's familiarity with graph editing concepts.

Pros of dagre

• Lightweight and focused on graph layout algorithms
• Provides more flexibility for custom rendering and integration
• Better performance for large graphs due to its specialized nature

Cons of dagre

• Requires more setup and integration with other libraries for full functionality
• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to GGEditor's all-in-one approach
• Limited built-in UI components and interaction features

Code Comparison

GGEditor example:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

const data = {
  nodes: [{ id: 'node1', label: 'Node 1' }],
  edges: []
};

<GGEditor>
  <Flow data={data} />
</GGEditor>

dagre example:

import dagre from 'dagre';

const g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();
g.setNode("node1", { label: "Node 1", width: 100, height: 30 });
g.setEdge("node1", "node2");
dagre.layout(g);

Summary

GGEditor offers a more comprehensive, user-friendly solution for graph editing with built-in UI components and interactions. dagre, on the other hand, focuses on graph layout algorithms, providing more flexibility and better performance for large graphs but requiring additional setup and integration with other libraries for a complete graph editing experience.