linaria

Pros of styled-components

• Dynamic styling with props and theming
• Automatic critical CSS extraction
• Seamless integration with React components

Cons of styled-components

• Runtime overhead due to CSS-in-JS approach
• Larger bundle size compared to static CSS solutions
• Potential for style duplication in server-side rendering

Code Comparison

styled-components:

const Button = styled.button`
  background-color: ${props => props.primary ? 'blue' : 'white'};
  color: ${props => props.primary ? 'white' : 'blue'};
  padding: 10px 20px;
`;

Linaria:

import { css } from '@linaria/core';

const button = css`
  background-color: ${props => props.primary ? 'blue' : 'white'};
  color: ${props => props.primary ? 'white' : 'blue'};
  padding: 10px 20px;
`;

Key Differences

• Linaria generates static CSS at build time, reducing runtime overhead
• styled-components offers more dynamic styling capabilities
• Linaria provides better performance and smaller bundle sizes
• styled-components has a larger ecosystem and community support

Both libraries offer CSS-in-JS solutions, but Linaria focuses on zero-runtime CSS generation, while styled-components provides more flexibility at the cost of runtime performance.

Pros of Emotion

• Runtime styling allows for dynamic, prop-based styles
• Larger ecosystem with more integrations and plugins
• Better support for server-side rendering

Cons of Emotion

• Slightly larger bundle size due to runtime CSS generation
• Potential performance overhead in complex applications
• Less type-safe compared to Linaria's static extraction

Code Comparison

Emotion:

import { css } from '@emotion/react'

const style = css`
  color: ${props => props.color};
`

Linaria:

import { styled } from '@linaria/react'

const StyledComponent = styled.div`
  color: ${props => props.color};
`

Both Emotion and Linaria are popular CSS-in-JS solutions, but they take different approaches. Emotion focuses on runtime styling, offering more flexibility and a rich ecosystem. Linaria, on the other hand, emphasizes static extraction and zero-runtime CSS, resulting in smaller bundle sizes and potentially better performance.

Emotion shines in dynamic styling scenarios and complex applications with frequently changing styles. It also has better server-side rendering support and a wider range of integrations.

Linaria excels in projects prioritizing performance and bundle size. Its static extraction approach leads to smaller bundles and eliminates runtime overhead. It also offers better type safety due to its compile-time nature.

The code comparison shows that both libraries allow for dynamic, prop-based styling. However, Emotion's runtime approach may provide more flexibility in certain scenarios, while Linaria's static extraction ensures that styles are resolved at build time.

Pros of CSS Modules

• Widely adopted and well-established in the React ecosystem
• Works with existing CSS workflows and tooling
• Supports server-side rendering out of the box

Cons of CSS Modules

• Requires additional build configuration and tooling
• Limited runtime flexibility for dynamic styles
• Potential for larger bundle sizes due to generated class names

Code Comparison

CSS Modules:

/* styles.module.css */
.button {
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
}

import styles from './styles.module.css';

const Button = () => <button className={styles.button}>Click me</button>;

Linaria:

import { css } from '@linaria/core';

const buttonStyle = css`
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
`;

const Button = () => <button className={buttonStyle}>Click me</button>;

Key Differences

• CSS Modules uses separate CSS files, while Linaria allows for CSS-in-JS
• Linaria provides better TypeScript integration and type safety for styles
• CSS Modules relies on build-time processing, whereas Linaria supports both build-time and runtime styling
• Linaria offers more advanced features like theming and dynamic styles
• CSS Modules has a larger ecosystem and community support

Both solutions aim to solve CSS scoping issues in component-based architectures, but they take different approaches. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team preferences, and existing workflows.

Pros of vanilla-extract

• Type-safe CSS-in-TS with static extraction, offering better performance
• Zero-runtime styling solution, reducing bundle size
• Supports CSS variables and themes out of the box

Cons of vanilla-extract

• Requires a build step, which may increase complexity
• Less flexible for dynamic styles compared to runtime solutions
• Steeper learning curve for developers used to traditional CSS

Code Comparison

vanilla-extract:

import { style } from '@vanilla-extract/css';

export const button = style({
  backgroundColor: 'blue',
  color: 'white',
  padding: '10px 20px'
});

Linaria:

import { css } from '@linaria/core';

export const button = css`
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
  padding: 10px 20px;
`;

Key Differences

• vanilla-extract uses object syntax for styles, while Linaria uses template literals
• vanilla-extract generates static CSS at build time, Linaria can work at runtime
• vanilla-extract offers stronger type safety and IDE support for styles

Both libraries aim to provide CSS-in-JS solutions with zero runtime overhead, but they differ in their approach to syntax and type safety. The choice between them often depends on project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of JSS

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger ecosystem
• Supports dynamic styling with JavaScript
• Offers better performance for large-scale applications

Cons of JSS

• Steeper learning curve due to its API complexity
• Requires additional setup and configuration
• Larger bundle size compared to Linaria

Code Comparison

JSS:

const styles = {
  button: {
    backgroundColor: 'blue',
    color: 'white',
    '&:hover': {
      backgroundColor: 'darkblue',
    },
  },
};

Linaria:

import { css } from '@linaria/core';

const button = css`
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
  &:hover {
    background-color: darkblue;
  }
`;

Both JSS and Linaria are CSS-in-JS solutions, but they differ in their approach. JSS uses a JavaScript object syntax for defining styles, while Linaria uses tagged template literals that look more like traditional CSS. JSS offers more flexibility and dynamic styling capabilities, making it suitable for complex applications. Linaria, on the other hand, provides a simpler API and generates static CSS at build time, resulting in smaller bundle sizes and better performance for simpler use cases. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your team's preferences.