greasemonkey

Pros of Violentmonkey

• Cross-browser compatibility (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and more)
• Better performance and resource management
• More frequent updates and active development

Cons of Violentmonkey

• Slightly less mature ecosystem compared to Greasemonkey
• Some advanced features may require additional configuration

Code Comparison

Violentmonkey:

// @grant GM_xmlhttpRequest
GM_xmlhttpRequest({
  method: "GET",
  url: "https://example.com",
  onload: function(response) {
    console.log(response.responseText);
  }
});

Greasemonkey:

// @grant GM.xmlHttpRequest
(async () => {
  let response = await GM.xmlHttpRequest({
    method: "GET",
    url: "https://example.com"
  });
  console.log(response.responseText);
})();

Both Violentmonkey and Greasemonkey are popular userscript managers, but Violentmonkey offers broader browser support and better performance. Greasemonkey, being older, has a more established ecosystem. The code comparison shows that Violentmonkey uses a callback-based approach for HTTP requests, while Greasemonkey supports async/await syntax. Both projects continue to evolve, with Violentmonkey showing more frequent updates in recent times.

Pros of Tampermonkey

• Cross-browser compatibility (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, etc.)
• More frequent updates and active development
• Enhanced script management features and user interface

Cons of Tampermonkey

• Closed-source, which may raise privacy concerns for some users
• Slightly more complex for beginners due to additional features

Code Comparison

Greasemonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @include  http://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

console.log("Hello from Greasemonkey!");

Tampermonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @match    http://example.com/*
// @grant    GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==

GM_addStyle("body { background-color: #f0f0f0; }");
console.log("Hello from Tampermonkey!");

The main differences in the code examples are:

• Tampermonkey uses @match instead of @include for URL matching
• Tampermonkey provides additional APIs like GM_addStyle for extended functionality
• Both extensions use similar metadata blocks, but Tampermonkey offers more options

Overall, Tampermonkey provides more features and broader browser support, while Greasemonkey remains open-source and simpler for basic userscript needs.

Pros of userscripts

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Broader browser compatibility, supporting Chrome, Firefox, and Safari
• Cleaner and more modern user interface for managing scripts

Cons of userscripts

• Less established community and ecosystem compared to Greasemonkey
• Fewer advanced features for power users
• Limited documentation and tutorials for new users

Code Comparison

Greasemonkey:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Greasemonkey Script
// @include  http://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    // Your code here
})();

userscripts:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My userscripts Script
// @match    http://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    // Your code here
})();

The main difference in the code structure is the use of @include in Greasemonkey versus @match in userscripts for specifying target URLs. Both projects use similar metadata blocks and self-executing function wrappers for script execution.

Pros of Stylus

• Focused specifically on CSS styling, providing a more streamlined experience for users primarily interested in customizing website appearances
• Offers a built-in style editor with syntax highlighting and live preview
• Supports importing styles from popular userstyle websites like userstyles.org

Cons of Stylus

• Limited to CSS modifications, lacking the full scripting capabilities of Greasemonkey
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with CSS

Code Comparison

Stylus (CSS-based customization):

body {
  background-color: #f0f0f0;
  font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
}

Greasemonkey (JavaScript-based customization):

// ==UserScript==
// @name     Example Script
// @match    https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#f0f0f0';
document.body.style.fontFamily = 'Arial, sans-serif';

Stylus focuses on CSS-based customization, while Greasemonkey allows for more complex JavaScript-based modifications. Stylus is ideal for users primarily interested in visual customization, whereas Greasemonkey offers broader functionality for advanced users who need to modify website behavior beyond just styling.