Pros of Keypress

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for key combinations and sequences
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Mature project with a larger user base and community support

Cons of Keypress

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Less actively maintained, with the last update in 2016
• More complex API, which may be overkill for simple use cases

Code Comparison

Keypress:

var listener = new window.keypress.Listener();
listener.simple_combo("shift s", function() {
    console.log("You pressed shift and s");
});

tinykeys:

import tinykeys from "tinykeys";
tinykeys(window, {
  "Shift+S": () => {
    console.log("You pressed shift and s");
  },
});

Summary

Keypress offers a more feature-rich solution with extensive documentation, making it suitable for complex keyboard interactions. However, it's less maintained and has a larger footprint. tinykeys, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more lightweight alternative with a focus on modern JavaScript practices and active maintenance. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity needed in keyboard event handling.

Pros of Mousetrap

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for key sequences and special keys
• Larger community and longer development history, potentially leading to better stability
• Supports older browsers and has no dependencies

Cons of Mousetrap

• Larger file size (4.8KB minified) compared to Tinykeys (1KB minified)
• More complex API, which may be overkill for simple use cases
• Less active development in recent years

Code Comparison

Mousetrap:

Mousetrap.bind('ctrl+shift+k', function() {
  console.log('Ctrl+Shift+K pressed');
});

Tinykeys:

import tinykeys from "tinykeys";

tinykeys(window, {
  "Control+Shift+K": () => console.log("Ctrl+Shift+K pressed"),
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic key binding, but Mousetrap's syntax is slightly more concise. However, Tinykeys uses a more modern import-based approach and provides a cleaner object-based configuration.

Pros of Keymaster

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for key sequences and multiple shortcuts
• Longer development history and larger community, potentially leading to better stability and support
• Cross-browser compatibility, including older browsers

Cons of Keymaster

• Larger file size (around 4KB minified) compared to Tinykeys' ultra-lightweight approach
• More complex API, which may be overkill for simple use cases
• Less active development in recent years

Code Comparison

Keymaster:

key('⌘+r, ctrl+r', function() {
  alert('stopped reload!');
  return false;
});

Tinykeys:

import tinykeys from "tinykeys";

tinykeys(window, {
  "Control+r": (event) => {
    event.preventDefault();
    alert('stopped reload!');
  }
});

Both libraries allow for easy key binding, but Keymaster's syntax is slightly more concise. However, Tinykeys offers a more modern, modular approach with its import statement and object-based configuration.

Pros of KeyboardJS

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for key combinations and sequences
• Better cross-browser compatibility, especially for older browsers
• Provides additional utilities like key mapping and locale support

Cons of KeyboardJS

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex API, potentially steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less frequently updated, with the last major release in 2019

Code Comparison

KeyboardJS:

KeyboardJS.bind('ctrl + shift + a', function(e) {
  console.log('Ctrl+Shift+A pressed');
});

tinykeys:

import tinykeys from "tinykeys";

tinykeys(window, {
  "Control+Shift+A": () => console.log("Ctrl+Shift+A pressed"),
});

Both libraries allow for binding key combinations, but KeyboardJS uses a more traditional event-based approach, while tinykeys employs a more modern, object-based syntax. tinykeys is more concise and arguably easier to read, especially when binding multiple shortcuts. However, KeyboardJS offers more flexibility in terms of event handling and additional features like key sequences.

Pros of hotkeys-js

• More comprehensive feature set, including support for various key combinations and modifiers
• Extensive documentation and examples provided in the README
• Supports multiple keyboard layouts and international keyboards

Cons of hotkeys-js

• Larger file size and potentially higher overhead compared to tinykeys
• More complex API, which may be overkill for simple use cases
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic functionality

Code Comparison

tinykeys:

import tinykeys from "tinykeys";

tinykeys(window, {
  "Shift+D": () => {
    console.log("The 'Shift' and 'd' keys were pressed at the same time");
  },
});

hotkeys-js:

import hotkeys from "hotkeys-js";

hotkeys("shift+d", function(event, handler) {
  console.log("The 'Shift' and 'd' keys were pressed at the same time");
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic key bindings, but hotkeys-js provides more advanced features and configuration options. tinykeys focuses on simplicity and a smaller footprint, making it ideal for projects with basic hotkey needs. hotkeys-js is better suited for applications requiring complex key combinations and extensive customization.