Pros of daisyUI

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of UI elements
• Highly customizable with theming support and color palette options
• Built on top of Tailwind CSS, leveraging its utility-first approach

Cons of daisyUI

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex class naming conventions
• Larger file size and potential performance impact compared to MVP's minimalist approach
• Requires Tailwind CSS as a dependency, which may not be suitable for all projects

Code Comparison

MVP:

<button>Click me</button>

daisyUI:

<button class="btn btn-primary">Click me</button>

MVP focuses on minimal, classless styling, while daisyUI uses Tailwind-based classes for more customizable components. daisyUI offers more advanced styling options out of the box, but requires learning its class system. MVP provides a simpler approach with fewer options but easier implementation for quick prototypes or minimalist designs.

Pros of Pico

• More comprehensive and feature-rich CSS framework
• Better documentation and examples
• Active development with frequent updates

Cons of Pico

• Larger file size compared to MVP
• Steeper learning curve due to more components and classes

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
}

Pico:

:root {
  --font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Ubuntu",
    "Cantarell", "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji",
    "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji";
  --line-height: 1.5;
  --font-weight: 400;
  --font-size: 16px;
  --border-radius: 0.25rem;
}

Both MVP and Pico are minimal CSS frameworks designed to provide a quick start for web projects. MVP focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while Pico offers a more comprehensive set of styles and components. Pico's larger feature set comes at the cost of a slightly larger file size and potentially more complex usage. MVP might be preferable for extremely simple projects or prototypes, while Pico could be a better choice for more fully-featured websites that still require a lightweight framework.

Pros of Water.css

• Smaller file size, making it more lightweight and faster to load
• Focuses solely on basic styling without additional components or features
• Easier to customize and integrate into existing projects due to its simplicity

Cons of Water.css

• Less comprehensive styling options compared to MVP
• Lacks pre-styled components and advanced features
• May require more custom CSS for complex layouts or designs

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
  --color-secondary: #920de9;
  --color-secondary-accent: #920de90b;
  --color-shadow: #f4f4f4;
  --color-text: #000;
  --color-text-secondary: #999;
  --font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  --hover-brightness: 1.2;
  --justify-important: center;
  --justify-normal: left;
  --line-height: 1.5;
  --width-card: 285px;
  --width-card-medium: 460px;
  --width-card-wide: 800px;
  --width-content: 1080px;
}

Water.css:

:root {
  --background-body: #fff;
  --background: #efefef;
  --background-alt: #f7f7f7;
  --selection: #9e9e9e;
  --text-main: #363636;
  --text-bright: #000;
  --text-muted: #70777f;
  --links: #0076d1;
  --focus: #0096bfab;
  --border: #dbdbdb;
  --code: #000;
  --animation-duration: 0.1s;
  --button-hover: #ddd;
  --scrollbar-thumb: rgb(213, 213, 213);
  --scrollbar-thumb-hover: rgb(196, 196, 196);
  --form-placeholder: #949494;
  --form-text: #000;
  --variable: #39a33c;
  --highlight: #ff0;
}

Pros of Sakura

• Extremely lightweight (2kb minified)
• Focuses on simplicity and readability
• Supports dark mode out of the box

Cons of Sakura

• Limited customization options
• Lacks pre-styled components
• May require additional CSS for more complex layouts

Code Comparison

Sakura:

html {
  font-size: 62.5%;
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif;
}

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
  --color-secondary: #920de9;
  --color-secondary-accent: #920de90b;
  --color-shadow: #f4f4f4;
  --color-text: #000;
  --color-text-secondary: #999;
  --font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  --hover-brightness: 1.2;
  --justify-important: center;
  --justify-normal: left;
  --line-height: 1.5;
  --width-card: 285px;
  --width-card-medium: 460px;
  --width-card-wide: 800px;
  --width-content: 1080px;
}

Pros of Simple.css

• More lightweight and minimalistic approach
• Focuses on semantic HTML without requiring additional classes
• Includes a dark mode option out of the box

Cons of Simple.css

• Less customization options compared to MVP
• Fewer pre-styled components and elements
• May require more custom CSS for complex layouts

Code Comparison

Simple.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Roboto', 'Oxygen', 'Ubuntu', 'Cantarell', 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
  color: #363636;
  background: #fff;
}

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
  --color-secondary: #920de9;
  --color-secondary-accent: #920de90b;
  --color-shadow: #f4f4f4;
  --color-text: #000;
  --color-text-secondary: #999;
}

Both Simple.css and MVP aim to provide quick and easy styling for web projects. Simple.css focuses on a more minimalistic approach with semantic HTML, while MVP offers more pre-styled components and customization options. The code comparison shows that Simple.css uses a straightforward body styling, whereas MVP utilizes CSS variables for easier theming and customization.

Pros of new.css

• Smaller file size, resulting in faster load times
• More minimalistic design, focusing on essential styling
• Easier to customize and extend due to its simplicity

Cons of new.css

• Less comprehensive styling out of the box compared to MVP
• Fewer pre-styled elements and components
• May require more custom CSS for complex layouts

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
    --border-radius: 5px;
    --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
    --color: #118bee;
    --color-accent: #118bee15;
    --color-bg: #fff;
    --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
}

new.css:

:root {
    --nc-font-sans: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol";
    --nc-font-mono: Consolas, monaco, 'Ubuntu Mono', 'Liberation Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;
    --nc-tx-1: #000000;
    --nc-tx-2: #1A1A1A;
    --nc-bg-1: #FFFFFF;
    --nc-bg-2: #F6F8FA;
}

Both projects aim to provide simple, classless CSS frameworks for quick prototyping and basic styling. MVP offers more comprehensive styling and pre-designed components, while new.css focuses on minimalism and simplicity. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of customization.