Pros of SpinKit

• More diverse and visually appealing animations
• Better browser compatibility, including older versions
• Modular structure allows for easy customization and integration

Cons of SpinKit

• Larger file size due to more complex animations
• Requires additional HTML markup for some loaders
• May be considered "over-designed" for minimalist projects

Code Comparison

SpinKit example:

<div class="spinner">
  <div class="bounce1"></div>
  <div class="bounce2"></div>
  <div class="bounce3"></div>
</div>

css-loaders example:

<div class="loader"></div>

SpinKit generally requires more HTML elements to create its animations, while css-loaders often achieves similar effects with a single element. This difference in approach affects both the complexity of implementation and the flexibility of the loaders.

SpinKit's CSS tends to be more verbose:

.spinner {
  width: 70px;
  text-align: center;
}
.spinner > div {
  width: 18px;
  height: 18px;
  background-color: #333;
  border-radius: 100%;
  display: inline-block;
  animation: sk-bouncedelay 1.4s infinite ease-in-out both;
}

css-loaders typically uses more compact CSS:

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

Pros of Whirl

• Larger variety of loader styles (over 100 options)
• More customizable with SCSS variables
• Includes both CSS and SCSS versions for flexibility

Cons of Whirl

• Larger file size due to more options
• May require more setup time to customize styles
• Less frequently updated (last update 3 years ago)

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;
}

Whirl:

.whirl {
  &:after {
    content: "\0020";
    display: block;
    width: 40px;
    height: 40px;
    border-radius: 50%;
    border: 6px solid #fff;
    border-color: #fff transparent #fff transparent;
    animation: whirl 1.5s linear infinite;
  }
}

Both repositories offer CSS-based loading animations, but they differ in approach and features. CSS-loaders provides a set of simple, lightweight loaders with minimal customization options. It's ideal for quick implementation and smaller projects. Whirl, on the other hand, offers a more extensive collection of loaders with greater customization potential through SCSS variables. This makes it suitable for larger projects or those requiring specific branding. However, the trade-off is a larger file size and potentially more complex setup. The code comparison shows that both use similar techniques for creating spinner animations, with Whirl utilizing SCSS for more flexible styling options.

Pros of loaders.css

• Offers a wider variety of loader animations (42 compared to 8 in css-loaders)
• Provides SASS and CSS versions for easier integration
• Includes a demo page for easy visualization of all loaders

Cons of loaders.css

• Larger file size due to more animations
• Some animations may be more complex, potentially impacting performance
• Requires additional HTML markup for some loaders

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;
}

loaders.css:

.ball-pulse > div {
  width: 15px;
  height: 15px;
  border-radius: 100%;
  margin: 2px;
  animation-fill-mode: both;
  display: inline-block;
  animation: scale 0.75s 0.12s infinite cubic-bezier(.2,.68,.18,1.08);
}

Both repositories provide CSS-based loading animations, but loaders.css offers more variety and flexibility. css-loaders focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while loaders.css provides more complex animations with additional customization options. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of complexity in the loading animations.

Pros of three-dots

• More comprehensive set of loading animations, including various styles and types
• Better organized documentation with clear examples and usage instructions
• Supports both CSS and SCSS, offering more flexibility for developers

Cons of three-dots

• Larger file size due to the extensive collection of animations
• May require more customization to fit specific design needs
• Less minimalistic approach compared to css-loaders

Code Comparison

three-dots:

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

css-loaders:

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

Both repositories provide CSS-based loading animations, but three-dots offers a wider variety of styles and better documentation. However, css-loaders is more lightweight and may be preferable for simpler projects or when minimalism is desired. The code examples showcase the different approaches, with three-dots using more complex animations and css-loaders focusing on simpler, single-element loaders.