Pros of generator-chrome-extension

• Uses Yeoman for scaffolding, providing a more robust and flexible project generation system
• Offers more customization options during project setup
• Includes support for ES6 and TypeScript out of the box

Cons of generator-chrome-extension

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• More complex setup process due to Yeoman dependency
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

generator-chrome-extension:

'use strict';
const Generator = require('yeoman-generator');
const chalk = require('chalk');
const yosay = require('yosay');

module.exports = class extends Generator {
  // ...
};

chrome-extension-cli:

#!/usr/bin/env node

const program = require('commander');
const chalk = require('chalk');
const createExtension = require('./createExtension');

program
  .version(require('../package').version)
  // ...

The code snippets show that generator-chrome-extension uses Yeoman's generator system, while chrome-extension-cli uses a more straightforward CLI approach with Commander.js. This reflects the different philosophies and complexities of the two projects.

generator-chrome-extension offers more flexibility and power through Yeoman, but chrome-extension-cli provides a simpler, more focused tool for quickly creating Chrome extensions. The choice between them depends on the user's needs and familiarity with the respective ecosystems.

Pros of chrome-extension-boilerplate-react

• Built-in React support, allowing for more complex and dynamic UI development
• Hot reloading feature for faster development and testing
• Includes example components and a more structured project layout

Cons of chrome-extension-boilerplate-react

• More complex setup and larger initial codebase
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers new to React
• May include unnecessary features for simpler extensions

Code Comparison

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react:

import React from 'react';
import { render } from 'react-dom';

import Popup from './Popup';
import './index.css';

render(<Popup />, document.getElementById('root'));

chrome-extension-cli:

document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
  var checkPageButton = document.getElementById('checkPage');
  checkPageButton.addEventListener('click', function() {
    chrome.tabs.getSelected(null, function(tab) {
      alert("Hello from your Chrome extension!");
    });
  }, false);
}, false);

The chrome-extension-boilerplate-react uses React components and JSX, while chrome-extension-cli uses vanilla JavaScript for DOM manipulation. The React-based approach offers more scalability and maintainability for complex UIs, while the vanilla JS approach is simpler and more lightweight for basic extensions.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Cross-browser compatibility: Supports Chrome, Firefox, and Opera
• TypeScript support: Provides type safety and better developer experience
• More comprehensive boilerplate: Includes popup, options, and content scripts

Cons of web-extension-starter

• Steeper learning curve: More complex setup and configuration
• Heavier project structure: May be overkill for simple extensions

Code Comparison

web-extension-starter (webpack.config.js):

module.exports = {
  entry: {
    popup: path.join(__dirname, 'source/Popup/index.tsx'),
    options: path.join(__dirname, 'source/Options/index.tsx'),
    background: path.join(__dirname, 'source/Background/index.ts'),
    contentScript: path.join(__dirname, 'source/ContentScript/index.ts'),
  },
  // ...
};

chrome-extension-cli (webpack.config.js):

module.exports = {
  entry: {
    popup: './src/popup.js',
    background: './src/background.js',
  },
  // ...
};

The web-extension-starter configuration is more comprehensive, including additional entry points for options and content scripts, while chrome-extension-cli provides a simpler setup with just popup and background scripts.

Pros of chrome-extension-typescript-starter

• Built-in TypeScript support, providing better type safety and developer experience
• Includes a sample project structure with TypeScript configuration
• Uses Webpack for bundling, offering more advanced build options

Cons of chrome-extension-typescript-starter

• Less opinionated about project structure compared to chrome-extension-cli
• Requires more manual setup and configuration for additional features
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to TypeScript

Code Comparison

chrome-extension-typescript-starter (tsconfig.json):

{
  "compilerOptions": {
    "target": "es5",
    "module": "commonjs",
    "strict": true,
    "esModuleInterop": true
  }
}

chrome-extension-cli (package.json):

{
  "scripts": {
    "start": "webextension-toolbox dev",
    "build": "webextension-toolbox build"
  }
}

The chrome-extension-typescript-starter provides a TypeScript configuration file, enabling type checking and compilation. In contrast, chrome-extension-cli focuses on simplifying the development process with predefined scripts for development and building, using the webextension-toolbox.

Both repositories aim to streamline Chrome extension development, but they cater to different preferences and skill levels. chrome-extension-typescript-starter is more suitable for developers who prefer TypeScript and want more control over their build process, while chrome-extension-cli offers a simpler setup with less configuration required.

Pros of chrome-extensions-samples

• Comprehensive collection of examples covering various extension features
• Official Google repository, ensuring up-to-date and best practice implementations
• Includes samples for both Manifest V2 and V3, catering to different extension versions

Cons of chrome-extensions-samples

• Lacks a CLI tool for quick project setup and scaffolding
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to the large number of examples
• Doesn't provide a streamlined development workflow or build process

Code Comparison

chrome-extensions-samples (basic extension structure):

{
  "manifest_version": 3,
  "name": "My Extension",
  "version": "1.0",
  "description": "A sample extension",
  "action": {
    "default_popup": "popup.html"
  }
}

chrome-extension-cli (generated project structure):

my-extension/
├── src/
│   ├── background.js
│   ├── content.js
│   └── popup/
│       ├── index.html
│       └── index.js
├── public/
│   └── manifest.json
└── package.json

chrome-extension-cli provides a more organized project structure with separate directories for source files and public assets, while chrome-extensions-samples focuses on individual example implementations without a standardized project structure.