Pros of commonmark-spec

• Comprehensive specification and test suite for CommonMark
• Provides a clear reference for implementers and users
• Includes extensive examples and edge cases

Cons of commonmark-spec

• Not a functional implementation, requires separate parser/renderer
• May be more complex for casual users to understand

Code comparison

commonmark-spec (example from test suite):

*foo bar*

*foo*

cmark (C implementation):

cmark_node *document = cmark_parse_document(buffer, len, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);
char *html = cmark_render_html(document, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);

Summary

commonmark-spec serves as the definitive specification for CommonMark, offering a comprehensive test suite and examples. It's invaluable for implementers and those seeking a deep understanding of the format. However, it's not a functional parser or renderer on its own.

cmark, on the other hand, is a reference implementation in C, providing a practical, high-performance CommonMark parser and renderer. It's more suitable for direct integration into projects but may not cover all edge cases as thoroughly as the spec.

Choosing between them depends on whether you need a specification (commonmark-spec) or a working implementation (cmark) for your project.

Pros of marked

• Written in JavaScript, making it easy to integrate into web applications
• Highly extensible with plugins and custom renderers
• Faster parsing and rendering compared to cmark

Cons of marked

• Less strict adherence to CommonMark specification
• May produce inconsistent output for edge cases
• Lacks some advanced features available in cmark

Code comparison

marked:

import { marked } from 'marked';

const html = marked('# Hello, world!');
console.log(html);

cmark:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "cmark.h"

int main() {
    char *html = cmark_markdown_to_html("# Hello, world!", 15, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);
    printf("%s\n", html);
    free(html);
    return 0;
}

Key differences

• Language: marked is written in JavaScript, while cmark is written in C
• Usage: marked is typically used in web environments, cmark in various applications
• Specification: cmark strictly follows CommonMark, marked is more flexible
• Performance: cmark generally offers better performance for large documents
• Ecosystem: marked has a larger ecosystem of plugins and extensions

Pros of markdown-it

• Written in JavaScript, making it easy to integrate into web applications
• Highly extensible with a plugin system for custom syntax and features
• Faster parsing and rendering compared to many other JavaScript-based Markdown parsers

Cons of markdown-it

• Less strict adherence to CommonMark specification compared to cmark
• Potentially larger bundle size when used in browser environments
• May require additional configuration to match cmark's output in some cases

Code comparison

markdown-it:

const md = require('markdown-it')();
const result = md.render('# Hello, world!');

cmark:

#include <stdio.h>
#include "cmark.h"

int main() {
    char *html = cmark_markdown_to_html("# Hello, world!", 15, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);
    printf("%s", html);
    free(html);
    return 0;
}

Additional notes

Both markdown-it and cmark are popular Markdown parsing libraries, but they serve different use cases. markdown-it is ideal for JavaScript-based projects, especially web applications, while cmark is better suited for applications requiring a C library or stricter CommonMark compliance.

Pros of Showdown

• Written in JavaScript, making it easy to integrate into web applications
• Supports a wide range of Markdown extensions and flavors
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of Showdown

• Slower performance compared to cmark, especially for large documents
• Less strict adherence to CommonMark specification
• Larger file size, which may impact load times in web applications

Code Comparison

Showdown

var converter = new showdown.Converter();
var html = converter.makeHtml('# Hello, Markdown!');

cmark

char *html = cmark_markdown_to_html("# Hello, Markdown!", 18, CMARK_OPT_DEFAULT);

Key Differences

• cmark is written in C, offering better performance but less flexibility
• Showdown provides more customization options and extensions
• cmark strictly follows the CommonMark specification
• Showdown is more suitable for web-based projects, while cmark is better for command-line tools and applications requiring high performance

Both projects have their strengths, and the choice between them depends on specific project requirements, performance needs, and the development environment.

Pros of Blackfriday

• Written in Go, offering better performance for Go-based applications
• More extensive feature set, including support for custom renderers and extensions
• Active development with frequent updates and community contributions

Cons of Blackfriday

• Less strict adherence to CommonMark specification
• May produce inconsistent output compared to other CommonMark implementations
• Larger codebase, potentially making it more challenging to maintain and debug

Code Comparison

Blackfriday:

import "github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2"

markdown := []byte("# Hello, World!")
html := blackfriday.Run(markdown)

cmark:

#include <cmark.h>

const char *markdown = "# Hello, World!";
char *html = cmark_markdown_to_html(markdown, strlen(markdown), 0);

Both libraries provide simple APIs for converting Markdown to HTML, but Blackfriday's Go implementation may be more appealing for Go developers. cmark, being written in C, offers a lower-level interface and potentially better cross-language compatibility.

While Blackfriday provides more features and customization options, cmark focuses on strict CommonMark compliance and simplicity. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, language preferences, and the importance of CommonMark compatibility.