Pros of generator-chrome-extension

• Offers more flexibility and customization options through Yeoman's scaffolding system
• Supports a wider range of Chrome extension types and configurations
• Provides a more established and mature ecosystem with Yeoman

Cons of generator-chrome-extension

• Less focused on React-specific development compared to chrome-extension-boilerplate-react
• May require more setup and configuration for React-based projects
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers new to Yeoman

Code Comparison

generator-chrome-extension:

module.exports = class extends Generator {
  prompting() {
    return this.prompt([
      {
        type: 'input',
        name: 'name',
        message: 'Your extension name'
      }
    ]).then(answers => {
      this.answers = answers;
    });
  }
}

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react:

const path = require('path');
const webpack = require('webpack');
const HtmlWebpackPlugin = require('html-webpack-plugin');
const { CleanWebpackPlugin } = require('clean-webpack-plugin');
const CopyWebpackPlugin = require('copy-webpack-plugin');

The code snippets highlight the different approaches: generator-chrome-extension uses Yeoman's generator system, while chrome-extension-boilerplate-react focuses on webpack configuration for React-based extensions.

Pros of react-chrome-extension-boilerplate

• Includes Redux for state management out of the box
• Supports hot reloading for faster development
• Provides a more comprehensive example with multiple pages and components

Cons of react-chrome-extension-boilerplate

• Less frequently updated (last update was 3 years ago)
• Uses older versions of React and other dependencies
• More complex setup, which may be overwhelming for beginners

Code Comparison

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react:

import React from 'react';
import { render } from 'react-dom';

import Popup from './Popup';
import './index.css';

render(<Popup />, document.getElementById('root'));

react-chrome-extension-boilerplate:

import React from 'react'
import { render } from 'react-dom'
import { Provider } from 'react-redux'
import App from './containers/App'
import configureStore from './store/configureStore'

const store = configureStore()

render(
  <Provider store={store}>
    <App />
  </Provider>,
  document.querySelector('#root')
)

The main difference in the code is that react-chrome-extension-boilerplate includes Redux setup, while chrome-extension-boilerplate-react has a simpler entry point. This reflects the overall complexity difference between the two boilerplates.

Pros of chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate

• Simpler setup with fewer dependencies, making it easier to understand and maintain
• More lightweight, potentially resulting in faster build times
• Provides a basic webpack configuration that can be easily customized

Cons of chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate

• Lacks React integration, which may be preferred for more complex UIs
• Doesn't include hot reloading, requiring manual reloads during development
• Less comprehensive documentation and examples compared to chrome-extension-boilerplate-react

Code Comparison

chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate:

module.exports = {
  entry: {
    popup: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "popup.js"),
    options: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "options.js"),
    background: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "background.js")
  },
  output: {
    path: path.join(__dirname, "build"),
    filename: "[name].bundle.js"
  },
  // ...
};

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react:

const config = {
  entry: {
    popup: path.join(__dirname, 'src', 'pages', 'Popup', 'index.jsx'),
    options: path.join(__dirname, 'src', 'pages', 'Options', 'index.jsx'),
    background: path.join(__dirname, 'src', 'pages', 'Background', 'index.js'),
    contentScript: path.join(__dirname, 'src', 'pages', 'Content', 'index.js'),
  },
  // ...
};

The code comparison shows that chrome-extension-boilerplate-react has a more structured approach with separate directories for different components, while chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate uses a simpler file structure.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Supports multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Edge) out of the box
• Includes TypeScript configuration for better type safety and developer experience
• Provides a more comprehensive project structure with separate directories for background, content, and options scripts

Cons of web-extension-starter

• Less active maintenance and fewer recent updates compared to chrome-extension-boilerplate-react
• Slightly more complex setup and configuration due to multi-browser support
• Fewer stars and community engagement on GitHub

Code Comparison

web-extension-starter (TypeScript):

import Browser from 'webextension-polyfill';

export async function getCurrentTab() {
  const [tab] = await Browser.tabs.query({ active: true, currentWindow: true });
  return tab;
}

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react (JavaScript):

/*global chrome*/
export const getCurrentTab = async () => {
  const [tab] = await chrome.tabs.query({ active: true, currentWindow: true });
  return tab;
};

The main difference in the code snippets is the use of the webextension-polyfill library in web-extension-starter, which provides cross-browser compatibility. chrome-extension-boilerplate-react uses the Chrome-specific API directly.

Both projects offer solid foundations for building browser extensions, with web-extension-starter focusing on multi-browser support and TypeScript, while chrome-extension-boilerplate-react provides a simpler React-based setup primarily for Chrome extensions.