Pros of Animate.css

• Larger community and longer history, resulting in more resources and examples
• Simpler implementation with predefined classes for quick use
• Wider browser compatibility, including older versions

Cons of Animate.css

• Less flexibility and customization options
• Larger file size when using the entire library
• Limited control over animation composition and sequencing

Code Comparison

AnimXYZ:

.xyz-in {
  --xyz-translate-x: 25%;
  --xyz-opacity: 0;
  --xyz-duration: 0.5s;
}

Animate.css:

.animate__animated.animate__fadeInRight {
  animation: fadeInRight 1s;
}

Key Differences

AnimXYZ offers a more modular approach with fine-grained control over animation properties, while Animate.css provides ready-to-use, predefined animations. AnimXYZ uses CSS variables for customization, whereas Animate.css relies on predefined keyframe animations. AnimXYZ allows for easier composition of complex animations, while Animate.css is simpler to implement for basic use cases.

Both libraries have their strengths, and the choice between them depends on the project's specific needs, desired level of customization, and target browser support.

Pros of anime

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports a broader range of animation types and properties
• Offers more advanced features like timeline and playback controls

Cons of anime

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Steeper learning curve for complex animations
• Less focused on CSS-based animations compared to animxyz

Code Comparison

animxyz:

<div class="xyz-in" xyz="fade up big">
  Animate me!
</div>

anime:

anime({
  targets: '.element',
  translateY: [-100, 0],
  opacity: [0, 1],
  duration: 1000,
  easing: 'easeOutElastic(1, .8)'
});

Summary

animxyz is a CSS-based animation library that focuses on simplicity and ease of use, particularly for Vue.js projects. It offers a declarative approach to animations using utility classes and custom attributes.

anime is a more comprehensive JavaScript animation library that provides greater flexibility and control over animations. It supports a wide range of animation types and offers advanced features like timelines and playback controls.

While animxyz excels in quick, CSS-driven animations, anime is better suited for complex, programmatic animations that require fine-tuned control. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the developer's preferred animation approach.

Pros of magic

• Simpler syntax and easier to implement for basic animations
• Smaller file size, making it more lightweight for projects
• Wider browser compatibility, including older versions

Cons of magic

• Limited customization options compared to AnimXYZ
• Fewer animation types and effects available
• Less flexibility for complex, multi-step animations

Code Comparison

magic:

.magictime {
  animation-duration: 1s;
  animation-fill-mode: both;
}

.puffIn {
  animation-name: puffIn;
}

AnimXYZ:

<div class="xyz-in" xyz="fade up big">
  Animate me!
</div>

@import '@animxyz/core';

.xyz-in {
  @include xyz-in;
}

AnimXYZ offers more granular control over animations through its utility classes and custom attributes, while magic provides pre-defined animations that are easier to implement but less customizable. AnimXYZ's approach allows for more complex and tailored animations, but may require more setup and understanding of its system.

Pros of Hover

• Simpler to implement with pre-defined CSS classes
• Focuses specifically on hover effects, making it easier to use for this purpose
• Larger collection of ready-to-use hover effects

Cons of Hover

• Limited to hover interactions only
• Less flexible for creating custom animations
• Requires adding multiple classes to achieve desired effects

Code Comparison

Hover:

<div class="hover-effect">
  <a href="#" class="hvr-grow">Grow</a>
  <a href="#" class="hvr-shrink">Shrink</a>
  <a href="#" class="hvr-pulse">Pulse</a>
</div>

AnimXYZ:

<div class="xyz-in" xyz="fade up big">
  <div class="item">Fade up big</div>
  <div class="item">Fade up big</div>
  <div class="item">Fade up big</div>
</div>

AnimXYZ offers more flexibility in creating custom animations with its utility-first approach, while Hover provides a set of predefined hover effects that are easy to implement. AnimXYZ allows for more complex animations beyond just hover effects, but may require more setup and understanding of its syntax. Hover is more straightforward for adding simple hover interactions but is limited in its scope and customization options.

Pros of hamburgers

• Focused specifically on hamburger menu animations
• Includes a variety of pre-built hamburger styles
• Lightweight and easy to implement for a single use case

Cons of hamburgers

• Limited to hamburger menu animations only
• Less flexible for creating custom animations
• Requires additional CSS for responsive design

Code Comparison

hamburgers:

.hamburger {
  padding: 15px 15px;
  display: inline-block;
  cursor: pointer;
  transition-property: opacity, filter;
  transition-duration: 0.15s;
  transition-timing-function: linear;
  font: inherit;
  color: inherit;
  text-transform: none;
  background-color: transparent;
  border: 0;
  margin: 0;
  overflow: visible;
}

AnimXYZ:

<div class="xyz-in" xyz="fade up big">
  <h1>Hello AnimXYZ!</h1>
</div>

AnimXYZ offers a more versatile animation system that can be applied to various elements, while hamburgers focuses solely on hamburger menu animations. AnimXYZ uses a declarative approach with utility classes and attributes, making it easier to create complex animations without writing custom CSS. However, hamburgers provides a simpler solution for developers who only need hamburger menu animations and prefer a more traditional CSS approach.