pint

Pros of PHP-CS-Fixer

• More extensive set of coding standards and fixers
• Highly configurable with numerous options
• Supports a wider range of PHP versions

Cons of PHP-CS-Fixer

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Configuration can be overwhelming for beginners
• Slower execution compared to Pint

Code Comparison

PHP-CS-Fixer configuration:

<?php
$config = new PhpCsFixer\Config();
return $config->setRules([
    '@PSR2' => true,
    'array_syntax' => ['syntax' => 'short'],
    'ordered_imports' => ['sort_algorithm' => 'alpha'],
]);

Pint configuration:

<?php
return [
    'preset' => 'laravel',
    'rules' => [
        'array_syntax' => ['syntax' => 'short'],
    ],
];

PHP-CS-Fixer offers more granular control over rules, while Pint provides a simpler configuration with Laravel-specific presets. PHP-CS-Fixer is more versatile for various PHP projects, whereas Pint is tailored for Laravel applications, offering a more streamlined experience for Laravel developers.

Pros of PHP_CodeSniffer

• More extensive and customizable ruleset options
• Supports a wider range of PHP versions
• Can be used as a standalone tool or integrated into various IDEs and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of PHP_CodeSniffer

• Steeper learning curve for configuration and customization
• Slower performance, especially on larger codebases
• Less opinionated defaults, requiring more initial setup

Code Comparison

PHP_CodeSniffer:

<?php
$phpcsFile = $phpcsFile;
$tokens    = $phpcsFile->getTokens();
foreach ($tokens as $token) {
    // Process tokens
}

Pint:

<?php
$pint = new Pint();
$pint->setPath(__DIR__);
$pint->fix();

PHP_CodeSniffer offers more granular control over token processing, while Pint provides a simpler, more streamlined approach to code fixing. PHP_CodeSniffer's flexibility comes at the cost of more complex setup and usage, whereas Pint aims for a more opinionated, "zero-config" experience out of the box.

Both tools serve the purpose of maintaining code quality and consistency, but they cater to different preferences in terms of customization and ease of use. PHP_CodeSniffer is better suited for projects requiring extensive customization, while Pint is ideal for those seeking a quick, standardized solution with minimal configuration.

Pros of PHPStan

• More comprehensive static analysis, detecting a wider range of potential issues
• Highly configurable with multiple rule levels and custom extensions
• Supports analysis of PHP 5.6 to 8.2, offering broader compatibility

Cons of PHPStan

• Steeper learning curve, especially for complex configurations
• Can be slower to run on large codebases compared to Pint
• May produce more false positives, requiring careful tuning

Code Comparison

PHPStan example:

<?php
declare(strict_types=1);

function foo(int $a, int $b): int {
    return $a + $b;
}

Pint example:

<?php

function foo(int $a, int $b): int
{
    return $a + $b;
}

PHPStan focuses on detecting type-related issues and potential bugs, while Pint primarily handles code style formatting. PHPStan's analysis would ensure the function's type declarations are correct and used properly, whereas Pint would format the code according to predefined style rules, such as adding a newline before the opening brace.

Both tools serve different purposes in improving code quality, with PHPStan offering deeper analysis and Pint providing quick, opinionated formatting.

Pros of Psalm

• More comprehensive static analysis, covering a wider range of potential issues
• Supports type inference and advanced type checking
• Offers more customization options and configuration flexibility

Cons of Psalm

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex features
• May produce more false positives, requiring fine-tuning
• Slower execution time compared to Pint's focused approach

Code Comparison

Psalm configuration example:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<psalm errorLevel="3">
    <projectFiles>
        <directory name="src" />
    </projectFiles>
</psalm>

Pint configuration example:

{
    "preset": "laravel",
    "rules": {
        "align_multiline_comment": true
    }
}

Psalm focuses on deep static analysis and type checking, while Pint is primarily a code style fixer. Psalm's configuration allows for more detailed control over analysis rules, whereas Pint's configuration is simpler and more focused on code formatting preferences.

Psalm is better suited for projects requiring thorough code analysis and type safety, while Pint is ideal for maintaining consistent code style across Laravel projects. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the development team's priorities.

Pros of Larastan

• Provides static analysis for Laravel applications, catching potential errors and bugs
• Offers deeper code analysis, including type inference and custom rule creation
• Integrates with PHPStan, leveraging its powerful static analysis capabilities

Cons of Larastan

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• May produce more false positives, requiring fine-tuning of rules
• Slower execution time compared to Pint's quick formatting checks

Code Comparison

Larastan configuration (phpstan.neon):

includes:
    - ./vendor/nunomaduro/larastan/extension.neon

parameters:
    level: 5
    paths:
        - app
    checkMissingIterableValueType: false

Pint configuration (pint.json):

{
    "preset": "laravel",
    "rules": {
        "align_multiline_comment": true,
        "array_indentation": true
    }
}

Larastan focuses on deep code analysis and type checking, while Pint primarily handles code style and formatting. Larastan requires more configuration but offers more comprehensive analysis, whereas Pint provides quick and easy code style fixes with minimal setup.