biome

Pros of Prettier

• Wider language support, including CSS, GraphQL, and YAML
• Larger ecosystem with more plugins and integrations
• More established project with a longer track record

Cons of Prettier

• Slower performance, especially on large codebases
• Less configurable, with a "opinionated" approach to formatting
• No built-in linting capabilities

Code Comparison

Biome:

biome.format({
  filePath: "example.js",
  text: "const x=1;const y=2;",
});

Prettier:

prettier.format("const x=1;const y=2;", {
  parser: "babel",
  semi: false,
});

Key Differences

• Biome is faster and more performant, especially for large projects
• Biome includes linting capabilities, while Prettier focuses solely on formatting
• Prettier supports more languages out of the box
• Biome offers more configuration options for formatting rules
• Prettier has a larger community and ecosystem of plugins

Use Cases

• Choose Biome for projects prioritizing performance and customization
• Opt for Prettier when working with multiple languages or requiring extensive plugin support
• Consider Biome for projects that want combined formatting and linting in a single tool
• Prettier may be preferable for teams wanting a strict, opinionated formatting approach

Pros of Rome

• More established project with a longer history
• Larger community and contributor base
• Wider range of supported languages and file types

Cons of Rome

• Development has slowed down significantly
• Less frequent updates and releases
• Some reported performance issues with larger codebases

Code Comparison

Rome configuration:

{
  "linter": {
    "enabled": true,
    "rules": {
      "recommended": true
    }
  }
}

Biome configuration:

{
  "formatter": {
    "enabled": true,
    "indentStyle": "space",
    "indentSize": 2
  },
  "linter": {
    "enabled": true
  }
}

Summary

While Rome has been around longer and has a larger community, Biome is gaining traction due to its more active development and performance improvements. Biome is essentially a continuation of Rome's vision, with a renewed focus on speed and efficiency. Both tools aim to provide an all-in-one solution for JavaScript and TypeScript development, including linting, formatting, and bundling capabilities. However, Biome's more recent updates and optimizations may make it a more attractive choice for new projects or those looking to migrate from other tooling setups.

Pros of ESLint

• Extensive ecosystem with numerous plugins and configurations
• Highly customizable with fine-grained control over rules
• Well-established with a large community and widespread adoption

Cons of ESLint

• Configuration can be complex and time-consuming
• Slower performance, especially on large codebases
• Requires separate tools for formatting and other code quality checks

Code Comparison

ESLint configuration:

{
  "extends": "eslint:recommended",
  "rules": {
    "semi": ["error", "always"],
    "quotes": ["error", "single"]
  }
}

Biome configuration:

{
  "formatter": {
    "enabled": true,
    "indentStyle": "space",
    "lineWidth": 80
  },
  "linter": {
    "enabled": true,
    "rules": {
      "recommended": true
    }
  }
}

Biome offers a more streamlined configuration with built-in formatting and linting capabilities, while ESLint requires separate configuration for each aspect of code quality. ESLint's configuration is more verbose but allows for more granular control over individual rules. Biome's approach simplifies setup and maintenance, potentially leading to improved developer experience and consistency across projects.

Pros of jscodeshift

• More mature and widely adopted in the JavaScript ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Powerful AST manipulation capabilities for complex code transformations

Cons of jscodeshift

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level API
• Slower performance for large-scale transformations
• Limited built-in formatting options

Code Comparison

jscodeshift:

export default function transformer(file, api) {
  const j = api.jscodeshift;
  return j(file.source)
    .find(j.Identifier)
    .replaceWith(
      p => j.identifier(p.node.name.toUpperCase())
    )
    .toSource();
}

Biome:

import { parse, print } from "@biomejs/biome";

const source = "const hello = 'world';";
const ast = parse(source);
const transformed = ast.replace({
  Identifier: (node) => ({
    ...node,
    name: node.name.toUpperCase(),
  }),
});
console.log(print(transformed).code);

Both tools allow for AST manipulation, but Biome offers a more high-level API and integrated formatting capabilities. jscodeshift provides finer control over transformations but requires more boilerplate code. Biome's approach is more concise and potentially easier for beginners to grasp.

Pros of TSLint

• Mature and well-established project with extensive documentation
• Large ecosystem of custom rules and plugins
• Specifically designed for TypeScript, offering deep integration

Cons of TSLint

• Deprecated and no longer actively maintained
• Slower performance compared to newer linting tools
• Limited support for modern JavaScript features

Code Comparison

TSLint configuration:

{
  "rules": {
    "no-unused-variable": true,
    "semicolon": [true, "always"]
  }
}

Biome configuration:

{
  "linter": {
    "rules": {
      "style": {
        "useConst": "error",
        "useSemicolons": "always"
      }
    }
  }
}

Summary

TSLint is a deprecated linting tool specifically designed for TypeScript projects. While it offers deep TypeScript integration and a large ecosystem of rules, it lacks support for modern JavaScript features and has performance issues. Biome, on the other hand, is a newer, faster, and actively maintained tool that supports both JavaScript and TypeScript. Biome aims to provide a more unified development experience by combining linting, formatting, and other tools into a single package.

Pros of Standard

• Widely adopted and well-established in the JavaScript community
• Simple setup with zero configuration required
• Extensive ecosystem of plugins and integrations

Cons of Standard

• Limited customization options
• Slower performance compared to newer linters
• Less comprehensive language support (primarily focused on JavaScript)

Code Comparison

Standard:

module.exports = {
  extends: 'standard',
  rules: {
    // No additional configuration needed
  }
}

Biome:

{
  "$schema": "https://biomejs.dev/schemas/1.0.0/schema.json",
  "organizeImports": {
    "enabled": true
  },
  "linter": {
    "enabled": true,
    "rules": {
      "recommended": true
    }
  }
}

Key Differences

• Biome is a more modern, all-in-one tool that includes formatting, linting, and more
• Standard focuses on JavaScript, while Biome supports multiple languages
• Biome offers more customization options and faster performance
• Standard has a larger community and more established ecosystem
• Biome provides a unified configuration for multiple tools, while Standard is primarily a linter