chota

Pros of Milligram

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better browser compatibility, including older versions

Cons of Milligram

• Larger file size (approximately 2KB vs. Chota's 3KB)
• Less customizable without modifying source files
• More opinionated design, which may require more overrides

Code Comparison

Milligram:

.button,
button,
input[type='button'],
input[type='reset'],
input[type='submit'] {
  background-color: #9b4dca;
  border: 0.1rem solid #9b4dca;
  border-radius: .4rem;
  color: #fff;
  cursor: pointer;
  display: inline-block;
  font-size: 1.1rem;
  font-weight: 700;
  height: 3.8rem;
  letter-spacing: .1rem;
  line-height: 3.8rem;
  padding: 0 3.0rem;
  text-align: center;
  text-decoration: none;
  text-transform: uppercase;
  white-space: nowrap;
}

Chota:

.button,
[type="button"],
[type="submit"],
button {
  padding: 1rem 2rem;
  color: #fff;
  background: var(--color-primary);
  border-radius: 4px;
  border: 1px solid transparent;
  font-size: var(--font-size);
  line-height: 1;
  text-align: center;
  transition: opacity 0.2s ease;
  text-decoration: none;
  transform: scale(1);
  display: inline-block;
  cursor: pointer;
}

Both frameworks provide similar button styling, but Milligram offers more detailed default styles, while Chota uses CSS variables for easier customization.

Pros of Spectre

• More comprehensive component library with a wider range of UI elements
• Better documentation and examples for easier implementation
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Spectre

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More opinionated design, potentially requiring more customization
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features

Code Comparison

Spectre:

.btn {
  display: inline-block;
  padding: .5rem .75rem;
  font-size: .8rem;
  line-height: 1.2rem;
  text-align: center;
  white-space: nowrap;
  vertical-align: middle;
  cursor: pointer;
}

Chota:

.button {
  padding: 1rem 2rem;
  color: var(--color-primary);
  background: var(--bg-primary);
  border: 1px solid var(--color-lightGrey);
  border-radius: var(--border-radius);
  font-size: var(--font-size);
}

Both frameworks provide simple and clean CSS for button styling, but Spectre offers more detailed default styles, while Chota uses CSS variables for easier customization.

Pros of water.css

• Smaller file size (2.2KB vs 3.8KB for Chota)
• More minimalistic approach, focusing on basic styling without additional components
• Automatic dark mode support based on user preferences

Cons of water.css

• Less customizable compared to Chota's modular approach
• Fewer pre-built components and utility classes
• Limited color palette options

Code Comparison

water.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
  color: #363636;
  background: #ffffff;
}

Chota:

:root {
  --bg-color: #ffffff;
  --text-color: #415462;
  --font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Avenir, "Avenir Next",
    "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Oxygen", "Ubuntu", "Cantarell", "Fira Sans",
    "Droid Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
}

Both CSS frameworks aim to provide simple, lightweight styling for web projects. water.css focuses on a more opinionated, out-of-the-box solution with automatic dark mode, while Chota offers greater flexibility and customization options. The code comparison shows that water.css directly applies styles to elements, whereas Chota uses CSS variables for easier theming and customization.

Pros of MVP

• Larger feature set with more pre-built components and utilities
• Includes dark mode support out of the box
• More comprehensive documentation with interactive examples

Cons of MVP

• Larger file size (8.5KB vs 3.5KB for Chota)
• Less customizable with fewer CSS variables
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex class structure

Code Comparison

MVP:

<button class="primary">Primary Button</button>
<button class="secondary">Secondary Button</button>
<button class="outline">Outline Button</button>

Chota:

<button class="button primary">Primary Button</button>
<button class="button secondary">Secondary Button</button>
<button class="button outline">Outline Button</button>

Summary

Both MVP and Chota are lightweight CSS frameworks designed for rapid prototyping and simple projects. MVP offers a more comprehensive set of features and components, including dark mode support, but comes at the cost of a larger file size and potentially more complex usage. Chota, on the other hand, provides a more minimalistic approach with a smaller footprint and easier customization options. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and your preference for simplicity versus feature richness.

Pros of Sakura

• Extremely lightweight (2kb minified and gzipped)
• Focuses on readability with a clean, minimalist design
• No classes required, making it easy to implement

Cons of Sakura

• Limited customization options compared to Chota
• Lacks built-in components and utilities
• May require additional CSS for more complex layouts

Code Comparison

Sakura:

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.8;
  max-width: 38em;
  margin: auto;
  color: #4a4a4a;
  background-color: #f9f9f9;
  padding: 13px;
}

Chota:

:root {
  --bg-color: #ffffff;
  --bg-secondary-color: #f3f3f6;
  --color-primary: #14854F;
  --color-lightGrey: #d2d6dd;
  --color-grey: #747681;
  --color-darkGrey: #3f4144;
  --color-error: #d43939;
  --color-success: #28bd14;
  --grid-maxWidth: 120rem;
  --grid-gutter: 2rem;
  --font-size: 1.6rem;
  --font-color: #333333;
  --font-family-sans: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Avenir, "Avenir Next", "Segoe UI", "Roboto", "Oxygen", "Ubuntu", "Cantarell", "Fira Sans", "Droid Sans", "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  --font-family-mono: monaco, "Consolas", "Lucida Console", monospace;
}

Pros of simple.css

• More lightweight and minimalistic approach
• Focuses on semantic HTML without classes
• Easier to implement for beginners

Cons of simple.css

• Less customization options out-of-the-box
• Fewer pre-built components and utilities
• May require more custom CSS for complex layouts

Code Comparison

simple.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.5;
  max-width: 70ch;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 2rem;
}

chota:

.container {
  max-width: 120rem;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 0 2rem;
}

.row {
  display: flex;
  flex-flow: row wrap;
  justify-content: flex-start;
}

simple.css takes a more minimalistic approach, applying styles directly to HTML elements without classes. This results in cleaner HTML but may limit flexibility for complex layouts. chota, on the other hand, uses a class-based system similar to other CSS frameworks, providing more structure and customization options.

While simple.css is easier to implement for basic projects, chota offers more advanced features like a grid system and pre-built components. The choice between the two depends on the project's complexity and the developer's preference for simplicity versus flexibility.