Pros of webextension-polyfill

• Provides a unified Promise-based API for cross-browser extension development
• Simplifies code by abstracting browser-specific implementations
• Actively maintained and updated to support latest browser APIs

Cons of webextension-polyfill

• Limited to polyfilling browser APIs, not a comprehensive example collection
• May introduce a small performance overhead due to Promise wrapping
• Requires additional setup and integration into extension projects

Code Comparison

webextension-polyfill:

browser.tabs.query({active: true, currentWindow: true}).then(tabs => {
  browser.tabs.sendMessage(tabs[0].id, {greeting: "Hello"});
});

webextensions-examples:

chrome.tabs.query({active: true, currentWindow: true}, tabs => {
  chrome.tabs.sendMessage(tabs[0].id, {greeting: "Hello"});
});

Summary

webextension-polyfill focuses on providing a consistent API across browsers, making it easier to write cross-browser extensions. It uses Promises for asynchronous operations, resulting in cleaner code. However, it's not a comprehensive resource for learning extension development.

webextensions-examples, on the other hand, offers a wide range of practical examples covering various extension features. It's an excellent learning resource but doesn't address cross-browser compatibility issues directly.

Developers may choose to use both repositories in conjunction: webextensions-examples for learning and reference, and webextension-polyfill for streamlining cross-browser development in their projects.

Pros of chrome-extensions-samples

• More extensive collection of examples, covering a wider range of Chrome extension APIs
• Regularly updated with new features and best practices for Chrome extensions
• Includes complex, real-world examples that demonstrate advanced functionality

Cons of chrome-extensions-samples

• Specific to Chrome, limiting cross-browser compatibility
• May include deprecated or experimental APIs that are not stable
• Less beginner-friendly, with fewer explanations and documentation within the examples

Code Comparison

webextensions-examples (manifest.json):

{
  "manifest_version": 2,
  "name": "Example Extension",
  "version": "1.0",
  "description": "A simple example extension"
}

chrome-extensions-samples (manifest.json):

{
  "manifest_version": 3,
  "name": "Chrome Extension Example",
  "version": "1.0",
  "description": "An example Chrome extension",
  "permissions": ["activeTab"]
}

The main difference in the code is the manifest version, with chrome-extensions-samples using the newer Manifest V3, while webextensions-examples still uses Manifest V2 for broader compatibility across browsers.

Pros of Awesome-WebExtensions

• Comprehensive collection of resources, including tutorials, libraries, and tools
• Regularly updated with community contributions
• Covers a wide range of topics beyond basic examples

Cons of Awesome-WebExtensions

• Lacks hands-on code examples for immediate implementation
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to the sheer amount of information
• Requires additional research to find the most relevant resources

Code Comparison

While Awesome-WebExtensions doesn't provide direct code examples, webextensions-examples offers practical implementations. Here's a comparison of how each repository might approach a simple browser action:

webextensions-examples:

browser.browserAction.onClicked.addListener(() => {
  console.log("Browser action clicked");
});

Awesome-WebExtensions: (No direct code, but might link to resources explaining browser actions)

Summary

webextensions-examples is ideal for developers seeking hands-on, ready-to-use code examples for specific extension features. It's particularly useful for beginners or those looking for quick implementation references.

Awesome-WebExtensions serves as a comprehensive resource hub, offering a broader perspective on extension development. It's better suited for developers looking to explore various tools, libraries, and advanced concepts in browser extension development.

The choice between the two depends on the developer's needs: immediate code examples (webextensions-examples) or a wide-ranging collection of resources (Awesome-WebExtensions).

Pros of vue-web-extension

• Built specifically for Vue.js, offering a streamlined development experience for Vue developers
• Includes hot-reloading, making the development process faster and more efficient
• Provides a modern build setup with webpack, allowing for better code organization and optimization

Cons of vue-web-extension

• Limited to Vue.js framework, less flexible for developers using other technologies
• Fewer examples and less comprehensive documentation compared to webextensions-examples
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Vue.js

Code Comparison

webextensions-examples (JavaScript):

browser.browserAction.onClicked.addListener(() => {
  console.log("Button clicked!");
});

vue-web-extension (Vue.js):

<template>
  <button @click="handleClick">Click me</button>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  methods: {
    handleClick() {
      console.log("Button clicked!");
    }
  }
}
</script>

The vue-web-extension example demonstrates the use of Vue.js components and methods, while the webextensions-examples code shows a more traditional JavaScript approach to handling browser actions.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Provides a modern development setup with TypeScript, React, and Webpack
• Includes cross-browser compatibility out of the box (Chrome, Firefox, Opera)
• Offers a well-structured project template with hot-reloading for faster development

Cons of web-extension-starter

• Less comprehensive in terms of API usage examples compared to webextensions-examples
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners due to its use of advanced tools and frameworks
• Focuses more on project structure and build process rather than demonstrating various WebExtension APIs

Code Comparison

webextensions-examples (JavaScript):

browser.browserAction.onClicked.addListener(() => {
  console.log("Button clicked!");
});

web-extension-starter (TypeScript):

import { browser } from 'webextension-polyfill-ts';

browser.browserAction.onClicked.addListener(() => {
  console.log("Button clicked!");
});

The web-extension-starter example uses TypeScript and imports the browser API from a polyfill library, providing better type checking and cross-browser compatibility. The webextensions-examples repository uses plain JavaScript and relies on the browser's native API, which is simpler but may require additional work for cross-browser support.