Pros of three.js

• More comprehensive 3D rendering capabilities, including advanced lighting, shadows, and textures
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and third-party resources
• Support for a wide range of 3D file formats and export options

Cons of three.js

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set and complexity
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead for simpler projects

Code Comparison

three.js:

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

Zdog:

const illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
  element: '.zdog-canvas',
  zoom: 4,
});
new Zdog.Box({
  addTo: illo,
  width: 100,
  height: 100,
  depth: 100,
  stroke: false,
  color: '#C25',
});

Summary

three.js offers a more powerful and versatile 3D rendering solution with a larger ecosystem, making it suitable for complex 3D projects. Zdog, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more lightweight approach to creating pseudo-3D graphics, making it easier to learn and use for basic illustrations and animations. The choice between the two depends on the project's requirements and the developer's familiarity with 3D concepts.

Pros of PixiJS

• More comprehensive and feature-rich 2D rendering engine
• Larger community and ecosystem with extensive plugins and extensions
• Better performance for complex 2D graphics and animations

Cons of PixiJS

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API and features
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for smaller projects
• Primarily focused on 2D graphics, lacking built-in 3D capabilities

Code Comparison

PixiJS example:

const app = new PIXI.Application();
document.body.appendChild(app.view);
const sprite = PIXI.Sprite.from('image.png');
app.stage.addChild(sprite);
app.ticker.add(() => sprite.rotation += 0.01);

Zdog example:

let illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
  element: '.zdog-canvas',
  dragRotate: true,
});
new Zdog.Rect({
  addTo: illo,
  width: 80,
  height: 80,
  stroke: 4,
  color: '#EA0',
});
illo.updateRenderGraph();

Both libraries offer different approaches to graphics rendering. PixiJS provides a robust 2D rendering engine with a focus on performance and extensive features, while Zdog offers a simpler, lightweight 3D engine for creating pseudo-3D illustrations. The choice between them depends on project requirements, complexity, and whether 2D or 3D graphics are needed.

Pros of p5.js

• Broader scope: p5.js is a full-featured creative coding library for interactive graphics, animations, and more
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Easier integration with web technologies and DOM manipulation

Cons of p5.js

• Larger file size and potentially slower performance for simple 3D projects
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

p5.js:

function setup() {
  createCanvas(400, 400, WEBGL);
}

function draw() {
  background(200);
  rotateX(frameCount * 0.01);
  rotateY(frameCount * 0.01);
  box(100);
}

Zdog:

let illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
  element: '.zdog-canvas',
  dragRotate: true,
});

new Zdog.Box({
  addTo: illo,
  width: 100,
  height: 100,
  depth: 100,
  stroke: false,
  color: '#C25',
});

illo.updateRenderGraph();

Summary

While p5.js offers a comprehensive toolkit for creative coding with extensive community support, Zdog focuses specifically on 3D graphics with a simpler API. p5.js is more versatile but may be overkill for simple 3D projects, where Zdog's lightweight nature shines. The choice between them depends on the project's scope and the developer's familiarity with each library.

Pros of OGL

• More comprehensive 3D rendering capabilities, supporting complex scenes and advanced shaders
• Better performance for large-scale 3D applications
• Extensive documentation and examples for various use cases

Cons of OGL

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex API
• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage
• Less suitable for simple, lightweight 3D graphics

Code Comparison

OGL example:

const renderer = new Renderer();
const gl = renderer.gl;
const camera = new Camera(gl);
const scene = new Transform();

const geometry = new Box(gl);
const material = new Program(gl, {
    vertex,
    fragment,
});

Zdog example:

let illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
    element: '.zdog-canvas',
    zoom: 4,
});

new Zdog.Box({
    addTo: illo,
    width: 100,
    height: 100,
    depth: 100,
    stroke: false,
    color: '#C25',
});

Summary

OGL is a more powerful and flexible 3D rendering library, suitable for complex 3D applications. Zdog, on the other hand, excels in creating simple, stylized 3D graphics with a more approachable API. Choose OGL for advanced 3D projects and Zdog for lightweight, pseudo-3D illustrations.

Pros of sketch.js

• Lightweight and simple 2D drawing library
• Easy to set up and use for quick prototyping
• Supports both canvas and WebGL rendering

Cons of sketch.js

• Limited to 2D graphics and animations
• Less active development and community support
• Fewer built-in features compared to more comprehensive libraries

Code Comparison

sketch.js:

Sketch.create({
  setup: function() {
    // Initialize your sketch
  },
  draw: function() {
    // Draw your sketch
  }
});

Zdog:

let illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
  element: '.zdog-canvas',
  zoom: 4,
});

new Zdog.Box({
  addTo: illo,
  width: 100,
  height: 100,
  depth: 100,
  stroke: false,
  color: '#C25',
});

illo.updateRenderGraph();

Key Differences

• sketch.js focuses on 2D graphics, while Zdog is designed for pseudo-3D illustrations
• Zdog offers a more specialized set of tools for creating isometric-style graphics
• sketch.js provides a simpler API for general-purpose 2D drawing and animation
• Zdog has a more active development community and regular updates

Both libraries serve different purposes, with sketch.js being more suitable for quick 2D prototypes and Zdog excelling in creating pseudo-3D illustrations and animations.

Pros of stats.js

• Lightweight and focused on performance monitoring
• Easy to integrate into existing projects
• Provides real-time FPS, MS, and MB statistics

Cons of stats.js

• Limited to performance monitoring only
• Less visually appealing compared to Zdog's 3D capabilities
• Fewer customization options for appearance

Code Comparison

stats.js:

var stats = new Stats();
stats.showPanel(0); // 0: fps, 1: ms, 2: mb, 3+: custom
document.body.appendChild(stats.dom);

function animate() {
    stats.begin();
    // monitored code goes here
    stats.end();
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
}

Zdog:

let illo = new Zdog.Illustration({
    element: '.zdog-canvas',
    zoom: 4,
});

new Zdog.Box({
    addTo: illo,
    width: 100,
    height: 100,
    depth: 100,
    stroke: false,
    color: '#C25',
});

function animate() {
    illo.rotate.y += 0.03;
    illo.updateRenderGraph();
    requestAnimationFrame(animate);
}

While stats.js focuses on performance monitoring, Zdog is a 3D engine for canvas and SVG. stats.js is more suitable for developers needing to track performance metrics, while Zdog is better for creating interactive 3D graphics. The code examples show the simplicity of integrating stats.js for monitoring versus creating a 3D object with Zdog.