Pros of floating-ui

• More flexible and framework-agnostic, allowing use with any JavaScript framework
• Improved performance with optimized positioning algorithms
• Broader feature set, including virtual elements and middleware

Cons of floating-ui

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Requires more manual setup compared to react-popper's higher-level abstraction

Code Comparison

floating-ui:

import {computePosition, flip, shift, offset} from '@floating-ui/dom';

computePosition(referenceEl, floatingEl, {
  placement: 'top',
  middleware: [offset(6), flip(), shift({padding: 5})],
}).then(({x, y}) => {
  Object.assign(floatingEl.style, {
    left: `${x}px`,
    top: `${y}px`,
  });
});

react-popper:

import {usePopper} from 'react-popper';

const {styles, attributes} = usePopper(referenceElement, popperElement, {
  placement: 'top',
  modifiers: [
    {name: 'offset', options: {offset: [0, 6]}},
    {name: 'flip'},
    {name: 'preventOverflow', options: {padding: 5}},
  ],
});

Both libraries provide powerful positioning capabilities, but floating-ui offers more granular control and flexibility at the cost of increased complexity. react-popper provides a more React-specific, higher-level abstraction that may be easier to integrate for React developers.

Pros of floating-ui

• More flexible and framework-agnostic, allowing use with any JavaScript framework
• Improved performance with optimized positioning algorithms
• Broader feature set, including virtual elements and middleware

Cons of floating-ui

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Requires more manual setup compared to react-popper's higher-level abstraction

Code Comparison

floating-ui:

import {computePosition, flip, shift, offset} from '@floating-ui/dom';

computePosition(referenceEl, floatingEl, {
  placement: 'top',
  middleware: [offset(6), flip(), shift({padding: 5})],
}).then(({x, y}) => {
  Object.assign(floatingEl.style, {
    left: `${x}px`,
    top: `${y}px`,
  });
});

react-popper:

import {usePopper} from 'react-popper';

const {styles, attributes} = usePopper(referenceElement, popperElement, {
  placement: 'top',
  modifiers: [
    {name: 'offset', options: {offset: [0, 6]}},
    {name: 'flip'},
    {name: 'preventOverflow', options: {padding: 5}},
  ],
});

Both libraries provide powerful positioning capabilities, but floating-ui offers more granular control and flexibility at the cost of increased complexity. react-popper provides a more React-specific, higher-level abstraction that may be easier to integrate for React developers.

Pros of Tippy.js

• More feature-rich out of the box, including animations, themes, and touch support
• Easier to set up and use for simple tooltip scenarios
• Smaller bundle size for basic use cases

Cons of Tippy.js

• Less flexible for complex positioning requirements
• Not as well-suited for highly customized or dynamic content
• May require additional setup for React integration

Code Comparison

Tippy.js:

tippy('#myButton', {
  content: 'Hello, Tippy!',
  placement: 'top',
  animation: 'scale'
});

React Popper:

<Popper placement="top" referenceElement={referenceElement}>
  {({ ref, style, placement }) => (
    <div ref={ref} style={style} data-placement={placement}>
      Hello, Popper!
    </div>
  )}
</Popper>

Summary

Tippy.js is a more user-friendly option for simple tooltip scenarios, offering a rich set of features out of the box. It's easier to set up and has a smaller bundle size for basic use cases. However, React Popper provides more flexibility for complex positioning requirements and is better suited for highly customized or dynamic content. React Popper also integrates more seamlessly with React applications, while Tippy.js may require additional setup for React integration.

Pros of floating-ui

• More flexible and framework-agnostic, allowing use with any JavaScript framework
• Improved performance with optimized positioning algorithms
• Broader feature set, including virtual elements and middleware

Cons of floating-ui

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Requires more manual setup compared to react-popper's higher-level abstraction

Code Comparison

floating-ui:

import {computePosition, flip, shift, offset} from '@floating-ui/dom';

computePosition(referenceEl, floatingEl, {
  placement: 'top',
  middleware: [offset(6), flip(), shift({padding: 5})],
}).then(({x, y}) => {
  Object.assign(floatingEl.style, {
    left: `${x}px`,
    top: `${y}px`,
  });
});

react-popper:

import {usePopper} from 'react-popper';

const {styles, attributes} = usePopper(referenceElement, popperElement, {
  placement: 'top',
  modifiers: [
    {name: 'offset', options: {offset: [0, 6]}},
    {name: 'flip'},
    {name: 'preventOverflow', options: {padding: 5}},
  ],
});

Both libraries provide powerful positioning capabilities, but floating-ui offers more granular control and flexibility at the cost of increased complexity. react-popper provides a more React-specific, higher-level abstraction that may be easier to integrate for React developers.

Pros of Material-UI

• Comprehensive UI component library with a wide range of pre-built components
• Implements Google's Material Design, providing a consistent and modern look
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Material-UI

• Larger bundle size due to the extensive component library
• More opinionated design system, which may require additional customization for unique designs

Code Comparison

Material-UI:

import { Button, Typography } from '@mui/material';

function MyComponent() {
  return (
    <Button variant="contained" color="primary">
      <Typography variant="button">Click me</Typography>
    </Button>
  );
}

React Popper:

import { usePopper } from 'react-popper';

function MyComponent() {
  const [referenceElement, setReferenceElement] = useState(null);
  const [popperElement, setPopperElement] = useState(null);
  const { styles, attributes } = usePopper(referenceElement, popperElement);

  return (
    <>
      <button ref={setReferenceElement}>Reference</button>
      <div ref={setPopperElement} style={styles.popper} {...attributes.popper}>
        Popper content
      </div>
    </>
  );
}

Summary

Material-UI offers a comprehensive UI library with Material Design implementation, while React Popper focuses specifically on positioning elements. Material-UI provides a wider range of components but may have a larger bundle size, whereas React Popper is more lightweight and flexible for custom positioning needs.