Pros of markdownlint

• Written in Ruby, making it easily extensible for Ruby developers
• Provides a command-line interface for easy integration into build processes
• Offers a wide range of customizable rules for Markdown linting

Cons of markdownlint

• May have slower performance compared to JavaScript-based alternatives
• Requires Ruby runtime, which might not be available in all environments
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to some other linters

Code Comparison

markdownlint:

rule "MD001", "Header levels should only increment by one level at a time" do
  tags :headers
  check do |doc|
    headers = doc.headers
    headers.each_cons(2).map do |first, second|
      second.level - first.level
    end.reject { |i| i <= 1 }
  end
end

markdownlint:

module.exports = {
  "default": true,
  "MD001": true,
  "MD003": { "style": "atx" },
  "MD007": { "indent": 4 },
  "no-hard-tabs": false
};

Note: The code comparison shows different approaches to rule definition and configuration between the Ruby-based markdownlint and the JavaScript-based markdownlint. The Ruby version defines rules programmatically, while the JavaScript version uses a configuration object.

Pros of Vale

• More versatile, supporting multiple markup languages beyond Markdown
• Highly customizable with user-defined style guides and vocabularies
• Integrates with various text editors and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of Vale

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive configuration options
• Requires more setup time compared to Markdownlint's out-of-the-box functionality
• May be overkill for simple Markdown-only projects

Code Comparison

Vale configuration example:

StylesPath = styles
MinAlertLevel = suggestion

[*.md]
BasedOnStyles = Vale, write-good

Markdownlint configuration example:

{
  "default": true,
  "MD013": { "line_length": 120 },
  "MD033": false
}

Both tools offer configuration options, but Vale's approach is more complex and flexible, allowing for custom styles and vocabularies. Markdownlint's configuration is simpler and focused specifically on Markdown rules.

Vale is better suited for larger projects with diverse content types and custom style requirements, while Markdownlint excels in straightforward Markdown linting tasks with minimal setup.

Pros of textlint

• More versatile, supporting multiple file formats beyond Markdown
• Highly extensible with a large ecosystem of plugins
• Provides a powerful API for custom rule creation

Cons of textlint

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader scope
• May require more configuration for Markdown-specific linting
• Potentially slower performance when processing large files

Code Comparison

textlint:

import { TextLintEngine } from "textlint";

const engine = new TextLintEngine();
const results = await engine.executeOnFiles(["README.md"]);

if (engine.isErrorResults(results)) {
  console.log(engine.formatResults(results));
}

markdownlint:

const markdownlint = require("markdownlint");

const options = {
  files: ["README.md"],
  config: {
    "default": true,
    "MD013": false
  }
};

markdownlint(options, function callback(err, result) {
  console.log(result.toString());
});

Both tools offer powerful linting capabilities, but textlint provides more flexibility for various text formats, while markdownlint focuses specifically on Markdown. The code examples demonstrate the different approaches to file processing and rule configuration in each tool.