sonner

Pros of Chakra UI

• Comprehensive component library with a wide range of pre-built UI elements
• Highly customizable with a robust theming system
• Excellent accessibility features built-in

Cons of Chakra UI

• Larger bundle size due to its extensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May require more setup and configuration

Code Comparison

Chakra UI example:

import { Button, Box } from "@chakra-ui/react"

function Example() {
  return (
    <Box>
      <Button colorScheme="blue">Click me</Button>
    </Box>
  )
}

Sonner example:

import { Toaster, toast } from 'sonner'

function Example() {
  return (
    <div>
      <Toaster />
      <button onClick={() => toast('My first toast')}>
        Create a toast
      </button>
    </div>
  )
}

Summary

Chakra UI is a comprehensive UI library offering a wide range of components and customization options, while Sonner is focused specifically on toast notifications. Chakra UI provides more flexibility but comes with a larger footprint and learning curve. Sonner offers a simpler, more targeted solution for toast notifications with a smaller bundle size and easier integration.

Pros of ui

• More comprehensive UI component library with a wider range of components
• Highly customizable and themeable, allowing for greater flexibility in design
• Follows a modular approach, enabling developers to use only the components they need

Cons of ui

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture and customization options
• Potentially larger bundle size if not properly optimized or tree-shaken

Code Comparison

ui:

import * as React from "react"
import { Button } from "@/components/ui/button"

export function ButtonDemo() {
  return <Button>Click me</Button>
}

sonner:

import { Toaster, toast } from 'sonner'

export default function App() {
  return (
    <div>
      <Toaster />
      <button onClick={() => toast('My first toast')}>
        Give me a toast
      </button>
    </div>
  )
}

Summary

ui offers a more extensive set of UI components with greater customization options, making it suitable for larger projects with diverse UI needs. However, it may require more time to learn and implement effectively. sonner, on the other hand, focuses specifically on toast notifications, providing a simpler and more straightforward implementation for this particular use case.

Pros of Primitives

• Comprehensive set of unstyled, accessible UI components
• Highly customizable and flexible for various design systems
• Strong focus on accessibility and keyboard navigation

Cons of Primitives

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases

Code Comparison

Primitives (Dialog component):

import * as Dialog from '@radix-ui/react-dialog';

<Dialog.Root>
  <Dialog.Trigger>Open</Dialog.Trigger>
  <Dialog.Portal>
    <Dialog.Overlay />
    <Dialog.Content>
      <Dialog.Title>Dialog Title</Dialog.Title>
      <Dialog.Description>Dialog content here</Dialog.Description>
      <Dialog.Close>Close</Dialog.Close>
    </Dialog.Content>
  </Dialog.Portal>
</Dialog.Root>

Sonner (Toast component):

import { Toaster, toast } from 'sonner';

<Toaster />
<button onClick={() => toast('My first toast')}>
  Create a toast
</button>

Summary

Primitives offers a comprehensive set of UI components with a strong focus on accessibility and customization. It's ideal for complex projects requiring fine-grained control over components. Sonner, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more straightforward approach to creating toast notifications, making it easier to implement basic use cases quickly. The choice between the two depends on the project's complexity and specific requirements.

Pros of Headless UI

• More comprehensive UI component library with a wider range of components
• Fully accessible and follows WAI-ARIA guidelines
• Highly customizable and framework-agnostic

Cons of Headless UI

• Steeper learning curve due to its headless nature
• Requires more setup and styling work compared to Sonner's ready-to-use components
• Larger bundle size due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

Sonner (Toast component):

import { Toaster, toast } from 'sonner'

function App() {
  return (
    <div>
      <Toaster />
      <button onClick={() => toast('My first toast')}>Give me a toast</button>
    </div>
  )
}

Headless UI (Menu component):

import { Menu } from '@headlessui/react'

function MyDropdown() {
  return (
    <Menu>
      <Menu.Button>More</Menu.Button>
      <Menu.Items>
        <Menu.Item>
          {({ active }) => (
            <a className={`${active && 'bg-blue-500'}`} href="/account-settings">
              Account settings
            </a>
          )}
        </Menu.Item>
      </Menu.Items>
    </Menu>
  )
}

Pros of react-toastify

• More feature-rich with extensive customization options
• Supports multiple toast types (success, error, info, etc.)
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of react-toastify

• Larger bundle size due to more features
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customizations
• More complex API compared to Sonner's simplicity

Code Comparison

react-toastify:

import { ToastContainer, toast } from 'react-toastify';
import 'react-toastify/dist/ReactToastify.css';

toast.success('Success message');

<ToastContainer position="top-right" autoClose={3000} />

Sonner:

import { Toaster, toast } from 'sonner';

toast('My first toast');

<Toaster />

Summary

react-toastify offers more features and customization options, making it suitable for complex projects with diverse notification requirements. It has a larger community and more frequent updates, ensuring better long-term support.

However, this comes at the cost of a larger bundle size and a steeper learning curve. The API is more complex compared to Sonner's straightforward approach.

Sonner, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more lightweight solution. It's easier to set up and use, making it ideal for projects that require basic toast functionality without the need for extensive customization.

The code comparison demonstrates the simplicity of Sonner's implementation compared to react-toastify's more verbose setup. While react-toastify requires importing styles and offers more configuration options, Sonner provides a more streamlined approach out of the box.