Pros of PixiJS

• Better performance for complex 2D graphics and animations
• More active development and community support
• Flexible and lightweight, allowing easier integration with other libraries

Cons of PixiJS

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less comprehensive documentation compared to Cocos2d-html5
• Fewer built-in game-specific features

Code Comparison

PixiJS:

const app = new PIXI.Application();
document.body.appendChild(app.view);
const sprite = PIXI.Sprite.from('image.png');
app.stage.addChild(sprite);
app.ticker.add(() => sprite.rotation += 0.01);

Cocos2d-html5:

var HelloWorldLayer = cc.Layer.extend({
    ctor: function() {
        this._super();
        var sprite = new cc.Sprite("image.png");
        this.addChild(sprite);
        this.schedule(function() {
            sprite.rotation += 0.01;
        });
        return true;
    }
});

PixiJS focuses on rendering performance and flexibility, making it suitable for complex 2D graphics applications. It has a more modern API and active development. Cocos2d-html5 provides a more structured game development framework with built-in features, making it easier for beginners to create games quickly. However, it has less flexibility and performance optimization compared to PixiJS.

Pros of melonJS

• Lightweight and focused on 2D game development
• Built-in physics engine (based on Box2D)
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of melonJS

• Less comprehensive documentation compared to Cocos2d-html5
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party extensions
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

melonJS:

me.game.onload = function() {
    me.state.set(me.state.PLAY, new PlayScreen());
    me.state.change(me.state.PLAY);
};

Cocos2d-html5:

cc.game.onStart = function(){
    cc.director.runScene(new MyScene());
};
cc.game.run();

Both frameworks use similar concepts for game initialization and scene management, but with different syntax and structure. melonJS uses a state-based approach, while Cocos2d-html5 employs a more direct scene management system.

melonJS is generally more suitable for developers focusing on 2D game development with built-in physics, while Cocos2d-html5 offers a broader range of features and better documentation, making it more accessible for beginners and larger projects.

Pros of Phaser

• More active development and larger community support
• Better documentation and extensive examples
• Built-in physics engines (Arcade Physics and Matter.js)

Cons of Phaser

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for web games

Code Comparison

Phaser (creating a simple sprite):

function create() {
    this.add.sprite(400, 300, 'player');
}

Cocos2d-html5 (creating a simple sprite):

var sprite = new cc.Sprite("player.png");
sprite.setPosition(400, 300);
this.addChild(sprite);

Both frameworks allow for easy sprite creation and positioning, but Phaser's syntax is slightly more concise. Phaser uses a scene-based structure, while Cocos2d-html5 follows a more traditional object-oriented approach.

Phaser is generally considered more modern and feature-rich, with better performance for complex games. However, Cocos2d-html5 may be easier for developers familiar with other Cocos2d variants or those looking for a simpler framework for basic 2D games.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired features. Phaser is often preferred for web-based game development due to its active community and extensive plugin ecosystem.

Pros of Kiwi.js

• More modern and actively maintained
• Better documentation and community support
• Easier to integrate with modern web development workflows

Cons of Kiwi.js

• Smaller ecosystem and fewer plugins compared to Cocos2d-html5
• Less optimized for mobile devices
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Kiwi.js:

var game = new Kiwi.Game('content', 'MyGame', state, { renderer: Kiwi.RENDERER_WEBGL });
var state = new Kiwi.State('MyState');
state.create = function() {
    this.sprite = new Kiwi.GameObjects.Sprite(this, this.textures.sprite, 100, 100);
    this.addChild(this.sprite);
};

Cocos2d-html5:

var MyScene = cc.Scene.extend({
    onEnter: function () {
        this._super();
        var layer = new cc.LayerColor(cc.color(255, 255, 255, 255));
        var sprite = new cc.Sprite("res/sprite.png");
        sprite.setPosition(100, 100);
        layer.addChild(sprite);
        this.addChild(layer);
    }
});

Both frameworks offer similar functionality for creating game scenes and adding sprites, but Kiwi.js uses a more modern JavaScript syntax and structure. Cocos2d-html5 follows a more traditional object-oriented approach with class extension.

Pros of Crafty

• Lightweight and modular architecture, allowing for easier customization
• Strong community support with active development and frequent updates
• Built-in entity-component system for flexible game object management

Cons of Crafty

• Less comprehensive documentation compared to Cocos2d-html5
• Smaller ecosystem of plugins and extensions
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to entity-component systems

Code Comparison

Crafty:

Crafty.e('2D, DOM, Color')
  .attr({x: 0, y: 0, w: 100, h: 100})
  .color('red');

Cocos2d-html5:

var sprite = new cc.Sprite();
sprite.setPosition(0, 0);
sprite.setContentSize(100, 100);
sprite.setColor(cc.color(255, 0, 0));
this.addChild(sprite);

Both frameworks offer ways to create and manipulate game objects, but Crafty's entity-component system allows for more concise and flexible code. Cocos2d-html5 follows a more traditional object-oriented approach, which may be more familiar to some developers but can lead to more verbose code.

Pros of stage.js

• Lightweight and minimalistic, focusing on performance and efficiency
• Easy to learn and use, with a simple API and clear documentation
• Supports both Canvas and WebGL rendering, providing flexibility

Cons of stage.js

• Less feature-rich compared to cocos2d-html5, which offers more built-in functionality
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially leading to fewer resources and extensions
• Limited support for complex game development scenarios

Code Comparison

stage.js:

Stage(function(stage) {
  var box = Stage.image('box').pin('align', 0.5);
  stage.root.append(box);
});

cocos2d-html5:

var MyScene = cc.Scene.extend({
  onEnter: function () {
    this._super();
    var sprite = new cc.Sprite("box.png");
    sprite.setPosition(cc.winSize.width / 2, cc.winSize.height / 2);
    this.addChild(sprite);
  }
});

The code comparison shows that stage.js has a more concise syntax for creating and positioning elements, while cocos2d-html5 follows a more object-oriented approach with scene management and inheritance.