Pros of three-dots

• Offers a wider variety of loading animations (12 types)
• Provides customization options for color, size, and speed
• Includes both CSS and SCSS versions for flexibility

Cons of three-dots

• Larger file size due to more animation options
• May require more setup and configuration for specific use cases
• Less minimalistic approach compared to loading

Code Comparison

loading:

.loading {
  animation: loading 1s infinite alternate;
}

@keyframes loading {
  0% { opacity: 0; }
  100% { opacity: 1; }
}

three-dots:

.dot-elastic {
  position: relative;
  width: 10px;
  height: 10px;
  border-radius: 5px;
  background-color: #9880ff;
  color: #9880ff;
  animation: dot-elastic 1s infinite linear;
}

Both repositories provide CSS-based loading animations, but three-dots offers more complex and diverse options. loading focuses on a simple, minimalistic approach with a single animation, while three-dots provides multiple animation types with customization possibilities. The code examples showcase the difference in complexity between the two projects.

Pros of SpinKit

• Offers a wider variety of loading animations (11 different styles)
• Includes both CSS and SCSS versions for flexibility
• Provides detailed documentation and examples for each animation

Cons of SpinKit

• Larger file size due to more complex animations
• May require more customization to fit specific design needs
• Some animations might be too elaborate for minimalist designs

Code Comparison

SpinKit (CSS):

.spinner {
  width: 40px;
  height: 40px;
  background-color: #333;
  margin: 100px auto;
  -webkit-animation: sk-rotateplane 1.2s infinite ease-in-out;
  animation: sk-rotateplane 1.2s infinite ease-in-out;
}

loading (JavaScript):

var loading = require('loading')
var el = loading()
document.body.appendChild(el)

SpinKit offers more complex CSS-based animations with various styles, while loading provides a simpler JavaScript-based approach for creating loading indicators. SpinKit is better suited for projects requiring diverse, visually appealing loading animations, whereas loading is ideal for quick implementation and minimal customization needs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project, such as design complexity, file size constraints, and preferred implementation method.

Pros of loaders.css

• Offers a wider variety of loader animations (30+)
• Provides both CSS and Sass versions for flexibility
• Includes a demo page for easy visualization of all loaders

Cons of loaders.css

• Larger file size due to more animations and options
• May require more customization to fit specific design needs
• Less focused on minimalism compared to loading

Code Comparison

loading:

.loading {
  animation: loading 1s infinite linear;
}

@keyframes loading {
  0% { transform: rotate(0deg); }
  100% { transform: rotate(360deg); }
}

loaders.css:

.ball-pulse > div {
  animation: scale 0.75s -0.24s infinite cubic-bezier(.2, .68, .18, 1.08);
}

@keyframes scale {
  0%, 80%, 100% { transform: scale(1); opacity: 1; }
  40% { transform: scale(0.3); opacity: 0.3; }
}

Both repositories provide CSS-based loading animations, but they differ in approach and complexity. loading focuses on simplicity with a single, customizable spinner animation. loaders.css offers a broader range of pre-built animations, catering to various design preferences. The code comparison shows that loading uses a straightforward rotation animation, while loaders.css employs more complex keyframes for diverse effects. Choose loading for minimalism and easy customization, or loaders.css for a ready-to-use variety of loader styles.

Pros of css-loaders

• Offers a wider variety of loader styles (8 different options)
• Pure CSS implementation, no JavaScript required
• Easily customizable through CSS variables

Cons of css-loaders

• Less lightweight, with more complex CSS
• Not as easily integrated into JavaScript frameworks
• Lacks the simplicity and minimalism of loading

Code Comparison

css-loaders:

.loader {
  border: 16px solid #f3f3f3;
  border-top: 16px solid #3498db;
  border-radius: 50%;
  width: 120px;
  height: 120px;
  animation: spin 2s linear infinite;
}

loading:

import React from 'react'
import { Loading } from 'loading'

export default () => (
  <Loading />
)

css-loaders provides more complex CSS animations for various loader styles, while loading offers a simpler, React-based approach with minimal code required for implementation.

css-loaders is better suited for projects where pure CSS solutions are preferred and a variety of loader styles is desired. loading is more appropriate for React-based projects that prioritize simplicity and minimal code overhead.

Both libraries serve their purposes well, with css-loaders offering more visual variety and loading providing a more streamlined, framework-friendly solution.

Pros of csspin

• Offers a wider variety of loading animations (25+) compared to loading's single animation
• Provides pure CSS solutions without JavaScript dependencies
• Includes more customization options for colors, sizes, and styles

Cons of csspin

• Larger file size due to multiple animation styles
• May require more effort to implement and customize compared to loading's simpler approach
• Less frequently updated and maintained than loading

Code Comparison

loading:

<div class="loading"></div>

.loading {
  animation: loading 1s infinite linear;
}

csspin:

<div class="cp-spinner cp-round"></div>

.cp-spinner {
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
}

Summary

csspin offers more variety and customization options for loading animations using pure CSS, while loading provides a simpler, more lightweight solution with a single animation style. csspin may be better suited for projects requiring diverse loading indicators, whereas loading is ideal for minimalist designs or performance-critical applications. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired balance between variety and simplicity.