Pros of LibreOffice core

• Comprehensive office suite functionality
• Large, active community and extensive documentation
• Native implementation for better performance and control

Cons of LibreOffice core

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to work with
• Steeper learning curve for developers
• May require more resources to run and maintain

Code comparison

LibreOffice core (C++):

void ScDocument::SetValue( SCCOL nCol, SCROW nRow, SCTAB nTab, double fVal )
{
    if (ValidColRow(nCol, nRow) && nTab >= 0 && nTab < static_cast<SCTAB>(maTabs.size()))
        maTabs[nTab]->SetValue(nCol, nRow, fVal);
}

JODConverter (Java):

public void convert(File inputFile, File outputFile) throws OfficeException {
    Map<String, ?> loadProperties = new HashMap<String, Object>();
    Map<String, ?> storeProperties = new HashMap<String, Object>();
    convert(inputFile, outputFile, loadProperties, storeProperties);
}

Summary

LibreOffice core offers a comprehensive office suite with native implementation, while JODConverter focuses on document conversion using LibreOffice as a backend. LibreOffice core provides more control and functionality but requires more resources and has a steeper learning curve. JODConverter offers a simpler API for document conversion tasks but may have limitations in terms of advanced features and performance compared to the native LibreOffice implementation.

Pros of unoconv

• Command-line interface for easy integration with scripts and automation
• Supports a wide range of document formats, including legacy formats
• Lightweight and doesn't require Java runtime

Cons of unoconv

• Requires LibreOffice or OpenOffice to be installed on the system
• May have slower performance for large-scale document conversions
• Less actively maintained compared to JODConverter

Code comparison

unoconv:

import subprocess

def convert_document(input_file, output_format):
    subprocess.run(["unoconv", "-f", output_format, input_file])

JODConverter:

import org.jodconverter.core.DocumentConverter;
import org.jodconverter.core.office.OfficeManager;

public void convertDocument(File inputFile, File outputFile) {
    documentConverter.convert(inputFile).to(outputFile).execute();
}

Both projects aim to convert documents using LibreOffice/OpenOffice, but they differ in their approach and implementation. unoconv provides a simple command-line interface, making it easy to use in scripts, while JODConverter offers a more robust Java-based solution with additional features and better performance for large-scale conversions. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as the programming language, scalability needs, and integration preferences.

Pros of pdf2htmlEX

• Specialized in converting PDF to HTML, maintaining visual fidelity
• Supports complex PDF layouts and embedded fonts
• Generates self-contained HTML files with CSS and JavaScript

Cons of pdf2htmlEX

• Limited to PDF-to-HTML conversion, less versatile than JODConverter
• May struggle with highly interactive or dynamic PDF content
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

pdf2htmlEX:

pdf2htmlEX input.pdf output.html

JODConverter:

DocumentConverter converter = new DefaultDocumentConverter();
converter.convert(new File("input.doc")).to(new File("output.pdf")).execute();

Summary

pdf2htmlEX excels at converting PDF documents to HTML while preserving layout and formatting. It's ideal for scenarios requiring accurate web representation of PDF content. However, it's limited to PDF-to-HTML conversions.

JODConverter offers broader document format support, including conversions between various office document formats. It's more versatile but may not match pdf2htmlEX's specialized PDF-to-HTML conversion quality.

Choose pdf2htmlEX for high-fidelity PDF-to-HTML conversions, and JODConverter for general document format conversions and broader compatibility.

Pros of Asciidoctor

• More versatile document processing: Asciidoctor can convert AsciiDoc to various output formats like HTML, PDF, EPUB, and DocBook
• Active community and regular updates: Asciidoctor has a larger user base and more frequent releases
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of Asciidoctor

• Limited to AsciiDoc format: Unlike JODConverter, Asciidoctor doesn't support conversion between different office document formats
• Steeper learning curve: Requires knowledge of AsciiDoc syntax, which may be unfamiliar to some users

Code Comparison

Asciidoctor (Ruby):

require 'asciidoctor'

Asciidoctor.convert_file 'document.adoc', to_file: 'output.html', safe: :safe

JODConverter (Java):

DocumentConverter converter = new DefaultDocumentConverter();
converter.convert(new File("document.doc")).to(new File("output.pdf"));

Both libraries offer straightforward conversion methods, but they serve different purposes. Asciidoctor focuses on AsciiDoc processing, while JODConverter handles various office document formats.

Pros of OpenHTMLtoPDF

• Specializes in HTML and CSS to PDF conversion, offering more precise control over layout and styling
• Supports a wider range of CSS features, including flexbox and grid layouts
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of OpenHTMLtoPDF

• Limited to HTML/CSS input, while JODConverter supports various document formats
• May require more setup and configuration for complex layouts
• Potentially steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with HTML/CSS

Code Comparison

OpenHTMLtoPDF:

PdfRendererBuilder builder = new PdfRendererBuilder();
builder.withUri("input.html");
builder.toStream(outputStream);
builder.run();

JODConverter:

DocumentConverter converter = new DefaultDocumentConverter();
converter.convert(new File("input.doc"))
         .to(new File("output.pdf"))
         .execute();

Both libraries offer straightforward APIs for document conversion, but OpenHTMLtoPDF focuses on HTML input, while JODConverter supports various document formats. OpenHTMLtoPDF provides more fine-grained control over the conversion process, especially for web-based content, whereas JODConverter offers broader format support and simpler usage for general document conversions.