Pros of plotly.js

• More extensive chart types and customization options
• Built-in support for 3D visualizations
• Active development with frequent updates and new features

Cons of plotly.js

• Larger file size and potentially slower performance for simple charts
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

plotly.js:

Plotly.newPlot('myDiv', [{
  x: [1, 2, 3, 4],
  y: [10, 15, 13, 17],
  type: 'scatter'
}]);

dygraphs:

new Dygraph(document.getElementById("graphdiv"), [
  [1, 10],
  [2, 15],
  [3, 13],
  [4, 17]
]);

Summary

plotly.js offers a wider range of chart types and customization options, including 3D visualizations, making it suitable for complex data visualization needs. It has an active development community and frequent updates. However, it comes with a larger file size and may have slower performance for simple charts compared to dygraphs. The API is more complex, resulting in a steeper learning curve.

dygraphs, on the other hand, is lightweight and focuses on time-series charts. It has a simpler API and faster performance for basic charts but lacks the extensive features and chart types offered by plotly.js.

Choose plotly.js for diverse chart types and advanced customization, or dygraphs for simpler, performance-focused time-series visualizations.

Pros of Chart.js

• Easier to use and more beginner-friendly
• Wider variety of chart types out of the box
• More modern and visually appealing default styles

Cons of Chart.js

• Less suitable for large datasets or real-time data
• Fewer options for customization and fine-tuning

Code Comparison

Chart.js:

new Chart(ctx, {
    type: 'line',
    data: {
        labels: ['Jan', 'Feb', 'Mar'],
        datasets: [{
            data: [10, 20, 30]
        }]
    }
});

Dygraphs:

new Dygraph(div, [
    [new Date("2023-01-01"), 10],
    [new Date("2023-02-01"), 20],
    [new Date("2023-03-01"), 30]
], {
    labels: ['Date', 'Value']
});

Chart.js uses a more declarative approach with a configuration object, while Dygraphs uses a more data-centric approach. Chart.js is generally easier to set up for simple charts, but Dygraphs offers more control over data handling and is better suited for time-series data and large datasets.

Pros of D3

• Highly flexible and customizable, allowing for a wide range of complex visualizations
• Large and active community, with extensive documentation and examples
• Supports a broader range of chart types and data visualization techniques

Cons of D3

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• Requires more code to create basic charts compared to Dygraphs
• Lower-level API, which can lead to more verbose implementations

Code Comparison

Dygraphs:

new Dygraph(document.getElementById("graphdiv"),
  "Date,Temperature\n" +
  "2008-05-07,75\n" +
  "2008-05-08,70\n" +
  "2008-05-09,80\n"
);

D3:

const svg = d3.select("#chart")
  .append("svg")
    .attr("width", width)
    .attr("height", height);

svg.selectAll("rect")
  .data(data)
  .enter()
  .append("rect")
    .attr("x", (d, i) => i * 70)
    .attr("y", (d, i) => height - 10 * d)
    .attr("width", 65)
    .attr("height", (d, i) => d * 10);

The code examples demonstrate that Dygraphs requires less code for basic charts, while D3 offers more granular control over chart elements.

Pros of three.js

• Powerful 3D rendering capabilities for complex visualizations
• Large, active community with extensive documentation and examples
• Supports a wide range of 3D features, including animations and VR/AR

Cons of three.js

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and 3D-specific concepts
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• May be overkill for simple 2D data visualizations

Code Comparison

three.js (3D scene creation):

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

dygraphs (2D chart creation):

new Dygraph(document.getElementById("graphdiv"),
  "Date,Temperature\n" +
  "2008-05-07,75\n" +
  "2008-05-08,70\n" +
  "2008-05-09,80",
  {legend: 'always', title: 'Daily Temperatures'}
);

three.js is better suited for complex 3D visualizations and interactive experiences, while dygraphs excels in creating simple, interactive 2D charts with a focus on time-series data. three.js offers more flexibility and power but requires more setup and knowledge of 3D graphics concepts. dygraphs provides a simpler API for quickly creating charts with built-in interactivity and is more lightweight, making it ideal for data-driven 2D visualizations.

Pros of Highcharts

• More extensive feature set with a wide range of chart types and customization options
• Better documentation and community support
• Smoother animations and interactivity

Cons of Highcharts

• Commercial license required for most use cases
• Larger file size and potentially slower performance for simple charts
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

Highcharts:

Highcharts.chart('container', {
  series: [{
    data: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  }]
});

Dygraphs:

new Dygraph(document.getElementById("container"), [
  [1, 1], [2, 2], [3, 3], [4, 4], [5, 5]
]);

Summary

Highcharts offers a more comprehensive charting solution with extensive features and better documentation, but comes at the cost of a commercial license and potentially higher complexity. Dygraphs, on the other hand, is open-source and simpler to use for basic charts, but may lack some advanced features and polish found in Highcharts. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, budget constraints, and the level of chart complexity needed.