evil-icons

Pros of Font-Awesome

• Extensive icon library with over 7,000 icons
• Regular updates and additions to the icon set
• Strong community support and widespread adoption

Cons of Font-Awesome

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• More complex implementation, especially for advanced features
• Potential performance impact when loading many icons

Code Comparison

Evil Icons:

<svg class="icon icon--ei-chart">
  <use xlink:href="#ei-chart-icon"></use>
</svg>

Font-Awesome:

<i class="fas fa-chart-bar"></i>

Key Differences

• Evil Icons focuses on a smaller, curated set of icons, while Font-Awesome offers a vast library
• Evil Icons uses SVG sprites, which can be more performant for smaller icon sets
• Font-Awesome provides more styling options and variations out of the box
• Evil Icons has a simpler implementation, ideal for projects with minimal icon needs
• Font-Awesome offers both free and paid versions with additional features

Use Cases

• Choose Evil Icons for projects requiring a lightweight, simple icon solution
• Opt for Font-Awesome when a wide variety of icons and styles are needed
• Consider Evil Icons for performance-critical applications with few icon requirements
• Use Font-Awesome for projects that may need frequent icon additions or updates

Pros of Feather

• Larger icon set with over 280 icons compared to Evil Icons' 70+
• More active development and frequent updates
• Supports multiple formats including SVG, React components, and icon fonts

Cons of Feather

• Slightly larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• Less opinionated design style, which may require more customization

Code Comparison

Evil Icons (Ruby):

require 'evil_icons'

EvilIcons.sprite_file
# => "/path/to/sprite.svg"

Feather (JavaScript):

import { icons } from 'feather-icons'

const svgString = icons.activity.toSvg()
// Returns SVG string for the 'activity' icon

Both libraries offer easy integration, but Feather provides more flexibility in terms of usage and customization options. Evil Icons has a simpler API, which may be preferable for smaller projects or those with specific design requirements. Feather's larger icon set and multiple format support make it more versatile for diverse project needs, while Evil Icons' focused collection and opinionated design may be advantageous for quick implementation with a consistent look.

Pros of Ionicons

• Larger icon set with over 1,200 icons compared to Evil Icons' 70+
• Supports multiple file formats (SVG, WebFont, PNG, and JS)
• Offers both Material Design and iOS-style icons

Cons of Ionicons

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• May require more setup and configuration for certain frameworks

Code Comparison

Evil Icons usage:

<div data-icon="ei-archive"></div>

Ionicons usage:

<ion-icon name="archive"></ion-icon>

Summary

Ionicons offers a more comprehensive icon set with greater versatility in terms of file formats and design styles. It's particularly well-suited for projects using Ionic Framework or those requiring a wide variety of icons. However, this comes at the cost of a larger file size and potentially more complex setup.

Evil Icons, while offering fewer icons, provides a simpler, more lightweight solution that may be preferable for smaller projects or those with specific design needs. Its implementation is straightforward and requires minimal setup.

Both libraries offer easy-to-use HTML implementations, with Ionicons using a custom element and Evil Icons using a data attribute. The choice between the two largely depends on the project's scope, design requirements, and performance considerations.

Pros of Octicons

• Larger icon set with over 200 icons, providing more variety
• Officially maintained by GitHub, ensuring consistency with their design system
• Supports multiple file formats (SVG, PNG, WebFont)

Cons of Octicons

• Heavier file size due to the larger icon set
• More complex implementation, especially for custom builds
• Primarily designed for GitHub's ecosystem, which may limit versatility in other contexts

Code Comparison

Evil Icons usage:

<%= evil_icon 'ei-archive' %>
<%= evil_icon 'ei-chart', size: :m %>
<%= evil_icon 'ei-check', size: :l, class: "custom-class" %>

Octicons usage:

<%= octicon "mark-github" %>
<%= octicon "mark-github", height: 32 %>
<%= octicon "mark-github", height: 32, class: "custom-class" %>

Both libraries offer simple HTML helpers for icon insertion, with Evil Icons using a prefix and Octicons using descriptive names. Octicons allows for more granular size control through height specification, while Evil Icons uses predefined size categories.

Pros of Material Design Icons

• Extensive collection with over 1,000 icons in various styles and themes
• Regular updates and additions to the icon set
• Comprehensive documentation and guidelines for usage

Cons of Material Design Icons

• Larger file size due to the extensive collection
• May require more effort to customize or modify icons
• Potential for inconsistency when mixing different icon styles

Code Comparison

Material Design Icons:

<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/icon?family=Material+Icons" rel="stylesheet">
<i class="material-icons">favorite</i>

Evil Icons:

<svg class="icon icon--ei-heart">
  <use xlink:href="#ei-heart-icon"></use>
</svg>

Summary

Material Design Icons offers a vast collection of icons with regular updates and comprehensive documentation. However, it may have a larger file size and require more effort to customize. Evil Icons provides a smaller, more focused set of icons with easier customization options but may lack the extensive variety found in Material Design Icons. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired flexibility, and performance considerations.

Pros of MaterialDesign

• Larger icon set with over 7,000 icons, offering more variety
• Supports multiple file formats (SVG, PNG, XAML)
• Regular updates and community contributions

Cons of MaterialDesign

• Larger file size due to extensive icon collection
• May require more time to find specific icons
• Steeper learning curve for implementation

Code Comparison

MaterialDesign (JavaScript):

import { mdiAccount } from '@mdi/js';
import Icon from '@mdi/react';

<Icon path={mdiAccount}
  size={1}
  color="red"
/>

Evil Icons (HTML):

<div data-icon="ei-user" data-size="s"></div>

Summary

MaterialDesign offers a vast collection of icons with multiple format support, making it suitable for larger projects with diverse icon needs. Evil Icons, while having a smaller set, provides a simpler implementation and faster load times due to its focused collection. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, with MaterialDesign excelling in variety and Evil Icons in simplicity and performance.