butterfly

Pros of X6

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Wider range of graph types and customization options
• Active development with frequent updates

Cons of X6

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger bundle size, which may impact performance

Code Comparison

X6:

import { Graph } from '@antv/x6';

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

graph.addNode({
  x: 100,
  y: 100,
  width: 80,
  height: 40,
  label: 'Hello',
});

Butterfly:

import { Canvas } from 'butterfly-dag';

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

canvas.addNode({
  id: 'node1',
  top: 100,
  left: 100,
  Class: Node,
  label: 'Hello',
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for creating graph-based visualizations, but X6 provides more advanced features and customization options. Butterfly, on the other hand, has a simpler API and may be easier to get started with for basic use cases. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity you need in your graph visualizations.

Pros of mxgraph

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Supports a broader range of diagram types and use cases
• Offers both client-side and server-side rendering options

Cons of mxgraph

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Less modern API design compared to newer libraries

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();
}

Butterfly:

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('root'),
  disLinkable: true,
  linkable: true
});
canvas.draw({
  nodes: [{id: 'node1', x: 20, y: 20, label: 'Hello,'}, {id: 'node2', x: 200, y: 150, label: 'World!'}],
  edges: [{source: 'node1', target: 'node2'}]
});

Both libraries provide powerful diagramming capabilities, but mxgraph offers more flexibility and features at the cost of complexity, while Butterfly focuses on simplicity and ease of use for basic diagrams.

Pros of jsPlumb

• More mature and established project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Supports multiple rendering modes (SVG, Canvas, VML) for better cross-browser compatibility
• Offers a commercial version with additional features and support

Cons of jsPlumb

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API and configuration options
• Less focus on performance optimization for large-scale diagrams
• Limited built-in layout algorithms compared to Butterfly

Code Comparison

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  var instance = jsPlumb.getInstance();
  instance.connect({
    source: "element1",
    target: "element2",
    anchor: ["Top", "Bottom"]
  });
});

Butterfly:

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('root')
});
canvas.draw({
  nodes: [{ id: 'node1' }, { id: 'node2' }],
  edges: [{ source: 'node1', target: 'node2' }]
});

Both libraries allow for creating connections between elements, but jsPlumb uses a more imperative approach, while Butterfly employs a declarative style with a single draw method. jsPlumb offers more granular control over individual connections, whereas Butterfly focuses on rendering entire diagrams with a simpler API.

Pros of react-diagrams

• More focused on React integration, making it easier to use in React-based projects
• Offers a more customizable and extensible architecture
• Has a larger and more active community, resulting in more frequent updates and better support

Cons of react-diagrams

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Less out-of-the-box functionality compared to Butterfly
• May require more setup and configuration for basic use cases

Code Comparison

Butterfly:

import { Canvas } from 'butterfly-dag';

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('root'),
  disLinkable: true,
  linkable: true
});

react-diagrams:

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

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

Both libraries provide ways to create and manage diagrams, but react-diagrams is more tightly integrated with React components and state management. Butterfly offers a more straightforward API for basic diagram creation, while react-diagrams provides greater flexibility and customization options at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of dagre

• Lightweight and focused on graph layout algorithms
• Well-established with a longer history and more widespread adoption
• Easier integration with other JavaScript libraries

Cons of dagre

• Limited built-in UI components and interactions
• Less comprehensive documentation and examples
• Fewer out-of-the-box features for complex diagram scenarios

Code Comparison

dagre:

var g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();
g.setNode("kspacey", { label: "Kevin Spacey", width: 144, height: 100 });
g.setNode("swilliams", { label: "Saul Williams", width: 160, height: 100 });
g.setEdge("kspacey", "swilliams");

Butterfly:

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('root'),
  disLinkable: true,
  linkable: true,
  draggable: true,
  zoomable: true,
  moveable: true,
  theme: {
    edge: {
      type: 'Straight',
    }
  }
});

Key Differences

• Butterfly offers a more comprehensive solution with built-in UI components and interactions
• dagre focuses primarily on graph layout algorithms, while Butterfly provides a full-featured diagramming toolkit
• Butterfly has better support for complex diagram scenarios and customization options
• dagre is more suitable for developers who need fine-grained control over graph layouts in their applications

Pros of Cytoscape.js

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Supports a wider range of graph visualization types and layouts

Cons of Cytoscape.js

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less focus on specific business-oriented diagrams
• Requires more custom code for advanced interactions

Code Comparison

Butterfly:

const canvas = new Canvas({
  root: document.getElementById('root'),
  disLinkable: true,
  linkable: true
});

canvas.draw({
  nodes: [...],
  edges: [...]
});

Cytoscape.js:

const cy = cytoscape({
  container: document.getElementById('cy'),
  elements: {
    nodes: [...],
    edges: [...]
  },
  style: [...],
  layout: {...}
});

Both libraries allow for creating graph visualizations, but Butterfly focuses more on drag-and-drop interactions and business diagrams, while Cytoscape.js offers more flexibility for various graph types and scientific visualizations. Butterfly provides a simpler API for basic use cases, while Cytoscape.js offers more advanced features and customization options at the cost of increased complexity.