Pros of pdf.js

• Written in JavaScript, making it easily integrable into web applications
• Renders PDFs directly in the browser without additional plugins
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of pdf.js

• May have slower performance for large or complex PDFs
• Limited support for some advanced PDF features
• Relies on browser capabilities, which can vary across different environments

Code Comparison

pdf.js:

PDFJS.getDocument('https://example.com/sample.pdf').then(function(pdf) {
  pdf.getPage(1).then(function(page) {
    var scale = 1.5;
    var viewport = page.getViewport(scale);
    // Render page on canvas
  });
});

pdfium-binaries:

FPDF_DOCUMENT document = FPDF_LoadDocument("sample.pdf", nullptr);
FPDF_PAGE page = FPDF_LoadPage(document, 0);
double width = FPDF_GetPageWidth(page);
double height = FPDF_GetPageHeight(page);
// Render page using native methods

Summary

pdf.js is a JavaScript-based PDF renderer ideal for web applications, offering easy integration and cross-browser compatibility. However, it may have performance limitations for complex PDFs. pdfium-binaries, on the other hand, provides native PDF rendering capabilities with potentially better performance but requires more setup and is less web-friendly. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as target platform, performance needs, and development environment.

Pros of qpdf

• Standalone C++ library for PDF manipulation, offering more flexibility and control
• Extensive command-line interface for various PDF operations
• Active development with regular updates and improvements

Cons of qpdf

• Requires more setup and integration effort compared to pre-built binaries
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to PDF manipulation

Code Comparison

qpdf:

QPDF pdf;
pdf.processFile("input.pdf");
QPDFWriter w(pdf, "output.pdf");
w.setStreamDataMode(qpdf_s_compress);
w.write();

pdfium-binaries:

FPDF_DOCUMENT doc = FPDF_LoadDocument("input.pdf", nullptr);
FPDF_SaveAsCopy(doc, "output.pdf", 0);
FPDF_CloseDocument(doc);

Summary

qpdf is a comprehensive PDF manipulation library, offering more control and features but requiring more setup. pdfium-binaries provides pre-built binaries for easier integration but may offer less flexibility. The choice depends on project requirements and developer expertise.

Pros of pikepdf

• High-level Python library for reading, manipulating, and writing PDF files
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Supports a wide range of PDF operations, including merging, splitting, and encryption

Cons of pikepdf

• Requires Python knowledge and environment setup
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners compared to pre-compiled binaries
• Performance might be slower for certain operations compared to native C++ implementations

Code comparison

pikepdf:

import pikepdf

pdf = pikepdf.Pdf.open("input.pdf")
pdf.save("output.pdf")

pdfium-binaries:

FPDF_DOCUMENT doc = FPDF_LoadDocument("input.pdf", nullptr);
FPDF_SaveAsCopy(doc, "output.pdf", 0);
FPDF_CloseDocument(doc);

Summary

pikepdf offers a more user-friendly Python interface for PDF manipulation, with extensive features and documentation. pdfium-binaries provides pre-compiled binaries of PDFium, offering potentially faster performance but requiring more low-level programming knowledge. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, programming language preference, and the level of PDF manipulation needed.

Pros of PyMuPDF

• Comprehensive PDF manipulation capabilities, including text extraction, rendering, and editing
• Extensive documentation and active community support
• Cross-platform compatibility with Python bindings

Cons of PyMuPDF

• Larger library size compared to pdfium-binaries
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners
• Potentially slower performance for certain operations

Code Comparison

PyMuPDF:

import fitz
doc = fitz.open("example.pdf")
page = doc[0]
text = page.get_text()

pdfium-binaries:

FPDF_DOCUMENT doc = FPDF_LoadDocument("example.pdf", nullptr);
FPDF_PAGE page = FPDF_LoadPage(doc, 0);
// Additional code required for text extraction

PyMuPDF offers a more straightforward API for common PDF operations, while pdfium-binaries provides lower-level access to PDF functionality. PyMuPDF is better suited for Python developers looking for a comprehensive PDF library, whereas pdfium-binaries is ideal for projects requiring fine-grained control and custom implementations in C/C++.

Pros of itext-java

• Comprehensive Java-based PDF library with extensive features for creating, manipulating, and processing PDF documents
• Active development and regular updates, with a large community and commercial support options
• Well-documented API with numerous examples and tutorials available

Cons of itext-java

• Commercial license required for many use cases, which can be costly for some projects
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set and API complexity
• Larger footprint and potential performance overhead compared to native bindings

Code Comparison

itext-java:

PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(new PdfWriter("output.pdf"));
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello, World!"));
document.close();

pdfium-binaries:

FPDF_DOCUMENT doc = FPDF_CreateNewDocument();
FPDF_PAGE page = FPDFPage_New(doc, 0, 595, 842);
FPDF_PAGEOBJECT text = FPDFPageObj_CreateTextObj(doc, "Arial", 12.0f);
FPDFText_SetText(text, "Hello, World!");
FPDFPage_InsertObject(page, text);
FPDF_SaveAsCopy(doc, "output.pdf", NULL);

Note: pdfium-binaries provides C/C++ bindings, so the code comparison is not directly equivalent. The itext-java example is in Java, while the pdfium-binaries example is in C++.