Pros of TinyMCE

• More extensive plugin ecosystem and customization options
• Better support for older browsers and legacy systems
• Easier integration with various frameworks and platforms

Cons of TinyMCE

• Larger file size and potentially slower load times
• Less modern UI design compared to CKEditor 5
• More complex configuration process for advanced features

Code Comparison

TinyMCE initialization:

tinymce.init({
  selector: '#myTextarea',
  plugins: 'advlist autolink lists link image charmap print preview',
  toolbar: 'undo redo | formatselect | bold italic | alignleft aligncenter alignright | bullist numlist outdent indent | link image'
});

CKEditor 5 initialization:

ClassicEditor
  .create(document.querySelector('#editor'), {
    toolbar: ['heading', '|', 'bold', 'italic', 'link', 'bulletedList', 'numberedList', 'blockQuote'],
    heading: {
      options: [
        { model: 'paragraph', title: 'Paragraph', class: 'ck-heading_paragraph' },
        { model: 'heading1', view: 'h1', title: 'Heading 1', class: 'ck-heading_heading1' },
        { model: 'heading2', view: 'h2', title: 'Heading 2', class: 'ck-heading_heading2' }
      ]
    }
  })
  .catch(error => {
    console.error(error);
  });

Pros of Quill

• Lightweight and modular architecture, allowing for easier customization
• Better performance with large documents due to its virtual DOM approach
• Simpler API and easier learning curve for developers

Cons of Quill

• Fewer built-in features compared to CKEditor 5
• Less extensive documentation and smaller community support
• Limited options for UI customization out of the box

Code Comparison

CKEditor 5:

ClassicEditor
    .create(document.querySelector('#editor'))
    .then(editor => {
        console.log('Editor was initialized', editor);
    })
    .catch(error => {
        console.error(error);
    });

Quill:

var quill = new Quill('#editor', {
    theme: 'snow'
});
quill.on('text-change', function(delta, oldDelta, source) {
    console.log('Editor contents changed');
});

Both editors offer easy initialization, but CKEditor 5 uses a promise-based approach, while Quill uses a more traditional object instantiation. CKEditor 5's API is more verbose, reflecting its richer feature set, while Quill's API is more concise, aligning with its lightweight nature.

Pros of Summernote

• Lightweight and easy to integrate
• Simple and intuitive user interface
• Extensive plugin ecosystem

Cons of Summernote

• Less robust features compared to CKEditor 5
• Limited customization options
• Slower development and update cycle

Code Comparison

Summernote initialization:

$('#summernote').summernote({
  height: 300,
  toolbar: [
    ['style', ['bold', 'italic', 'underline', 'clear']],
    ['font', ['strikethrough', 'superscript', 'subscript']],
    ['fontsize', ['fontsize']],
    ['color', ['color']],
    ['para', ['ul', 'ol', 'paragraph']],
    ['height', ['height']]
  ]
});

CKEditor 5 initialization:

ClassicEditor
    .create(document.querySelector('#editor'), {
        toolbar: ['heading', '|', 'bold', 'italic', 'link', 'bulletedList', 'numberedList', 'blockQuote'],
        heading: {
            options: [
                { model: 'paragraph', title: 'Paragraph', class: 'ck-heading_paragraph' },
                { model: 'heading1', view: 'h1', title: 'Heading 1', class: 'ck-heading_heading1' },
                { model: 'heading2', view: 'h2', title: 'Heading 2', class: 'ck-heading_heading2' }
            ]
        }
    })
    .catch(error => {
        console.error(error);
    });

Pros of Froala Editor

• Lightweight and fast performance
• Extensive customization options and API
• Mobile-friendly with touch support

Cons of Froala Editor

• Commercial license required for most use cases
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customizations
• Limited free features compared to CKEditor 5

Code Comparison

Froala Editor initialization:

new FroalaEditor('#editor', {
  toolbarButtons: ['bold', 'italic', 'underline'],
  placeholderText: 'Start typing...'
});

CKEditor 5 initialization:

ClassicEditor
  .create(document.querySelector('#editor'), {
    toolbar: ['bold', 'italic', 'underline'],
    placeholder: 'Start typing...'
  })
  .catch(error => console.error(error));

Both editors offer similar initialization processes, but CKEditor 5 uses a promise-based approach. Froala Editor provides more direct access to configuration options, while CKEditor 5 follows a modular structure.

Froala Editor focuses on simplicity and performance, making it suitable for projects requiring a lightweight solution. CKEditor 5, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive set of features and a flexible architecture, which can be advantageous for complex editing requirements.

The choice between the two depends on specific project needs, budget constraints, and desired customization levels.

Pros of medium-editor

• Lightweight and minimalistic, with a smaller footprint than CKEditor 5
• Easier to customize and extend due to its simpler architecture
• Better suited for basic content editing tasks with less overhead

Cons of medium-editor

• Less feature-rich compared to CKEditor 5's extensive plugin ecosystem
• Limited built-in support for advanced formatting and content types
• Less active development and community support in recent years

Code Comparison

medium-editor:

var editor = new MediumEditor('.editable', {
    toolbar: {
        buttons: ['bold', 'italic', 'underline', 'anchor']
    }
});

CKEditor 5:

ClassicEditor
    .create(document.querySelector('#editor'), {
        toolbar: ['bold', 'italic', 'link', 'bulletedList', 'numberedList']
    })
    .catch(error => {
        console.error(error);
    });

Both editors allow for easy initialization and basic toolbar configuration. However, CKEditor 5 offers a more robust and modular approach, with additional features and customization options available through its plugin system. medium-editor provides a simpler setup process, which can be advantageous for projects requiring basic editing functionality without the need for extensive customization.

Pros of Draft.js

• Lightweight and flexible, allowing for more customization
• Better suited for complex, non-traditional text editing scenarios
• Seamless integration with React applications

Cons of Draft.js

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to React
• Less out-of-the-box features compared to CKEditor 5
• Requires more effort to implement basic rich text editing functionality

Code Comparison

Draft.js basic implementation:

import { Editor, EditorState } from 'draft-js';

const [editorState, setEditorState] = useState(EditorState.createEmpty());

<Editor editorState={editorState} onChange={setEditorState} />

CKEditor 5 basic implementation:

import { CKEditor } from '@ckeditor/ckeditor5-react';
import ClassicEditor from '@ckeditor/ckeditor5-build-classic';

<CKEditor
    editor={ClassicEditor}
    data="<p>Hello from CKEditor 5!</p>"
    onChange={(event, editor) => {
        const data = editor.getData();
        console.log(data);
    }}
/>

Summary

Draft.js offers more flexibility and is better suited for React applications, but requires more setup and customization. CKEditor 5 provides a more feature-rich, out-of-the-box solution for traditional rich text editing scenarios, but may be less flexible for complex, non-standard use cases. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the development team's expertise.