Pros of webextension-polyfill

• Provides a unified API for cross-browser extension development
• Simplifies the process of creating extensions compatible with multiple browsers
• Actively maintained by Mozilla, ensuring regular updates and support

Cons of webextension-polyfill

• Limited to browser extension development, not a general-purpose styling tool
• May introduce a small performance overhead due to the abstraction layer
• Requires additional setup and integration into existing projects

Code Comparison

webextension-polyfill:

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

Stylus:

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

Summary

webextension-polyfill is a library focused on providing a consistent API for cross-browser extension development, while Stylus is a user styles manager for customizing web page appearances. The former offers broader browser compatibility and simplified development, but is limited to extension creation. Stylus, on the other hand, provides powerful styling capabilities for end-users but may require more effort for cross-browser compatibility in extension development.

Pros of uBlock

• More comprehensive content blocking, including network requests and scripts
• Larger user base and more frequent updates
• Better performance and lower resource usage

Cons of uBlock

• Less customizable for styling websites
• Primarily focused on ad-blocking rather than CSS customization
• Steeper learning curve for advanced features

Code Comparison

Stylus (CSS-based customization):

body {
  background-color: #f0f0f0;
  font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
}

uBlock (Filter-based blocking):

||example.com/ads/*
||tracking.com^$third-party

Key Differences

• Stylus is primarily for custom CSS injection and website styling
• uBlock focuses on content blocking and privacy protection
• Stylus offers more granular control over website appearance
• uBlock provides broader protection against ads, trackers, and malware

Use Cases

• Use Stylus for customizing website appearance and layout
• Use uBlock for comprehensive ad-blocking and privacy protection
• Stylus is ideal for web developers and designers
• uBlock is better suited for general users seeking improved browsing experience

Community and Support

• Both projects have active communities on GitHub
• uBlock has more contributors and a larger user base
• Stylus has a more specialized focus, attracting CSS enthusiasts

Compatibility

• Both extensions are available for major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge)
• uBlock offers additional features on Firefox due to extended API support
• Stylus works well alongside other content blockers, including uBlock

Pros of Violentmonkey

• Supports a wider range of userscript managers, including Greasemonkey and Tampermonkey
• Offers more advanced features for userscript management and development
• Has a larger and more active community, resulting in frequent updates and improvements

Cons of Violentmonkey

• May have a steeper learning curve for new users compared to Stylus
• Can be more resource-intensive due to its broader feature set
• Lacks some of the specialized CSS-focused tools that Stylus provides

Code Comparison

Stylus (CSS-focused):

@-moz-document domain("example.com") {
  body {
    background-color: #f0f0f0;
  }
}

Violentmonkey (JavaScript-focused):

// ==UserScript==
// @name     Example Script
// @match    https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    document.body.style.backgroundColor = '#f0f0f0';
})();

While both extensions allow for website customization, Stylus is primarily designed for CSS modifications, making it more straightforward for styling tasks. Violentmonkey, on the other hand, provides a full JavaScript environment, offering more flexibility and power for complex modifications and functionality enhancements.

Pros of Greasemonkey

• Supports a wider range of browsers, including Firefox and Chrome-based browsers
• More established and mature project with a longer history
• Offers more advanced scripting capabilities, allowing for complex user scripts

Cons of Greasemonkey

• Less user-friendly interface for managing scripts
• Requires more technical knowledge to create and modify scripts
• Limited built-in features for CSS manipulation compared to Stylus

Code Comparison

Greasemonkey script example:

// ==UserScript==
// @name     My Script
// @include  http://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    // Your code here
})();

Stylus CSS example:

@-moz-document domain("example.com") {
    body {
        background-color: #f0f0f0;
    }
}

Summary

Greasemonkey is a powerful tool for advanced users who need complex scripting capabilities across multiple browsers. It offers more flexibility but requires more technical knowledge. Stylus, on the other hand, focuses on CSS manipulation and provides a more user-friendly interface for managing styles. The choice between the two depends on the user's needs and technical expertise.

Pros of Tampermonkey

• More versatile, supporting a wider range of script types and functionalities
• Larger user base and community, resulting in more available scripts and resources
• Better cross-browser compatibility, available on more platforms

Cons of Tampermonkey

• Potentially higher resource usage due to its broader scope
• More complex interface, which may be overwhelming for new users
• Higher security risk due to the ability to run arbitrary JavaScript

Code Comparison

Tampermonkey script example:

// ==UserScript==
// @name         My Userscript
// @namespace    http://tampermonkey.net/
// @version      0.1
// @description  Example script
// @match        https://example.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    'use strict';
    // Your code here...
})();

Stylus CSS example:

@-moz-document domain("example.com") {
    body {
        background-color: #f0f0f0;
    }
    .header {
        color: #333;
    }
}

The main difference is that Tampermonkey allows for full JavaScript functionality, while Stylus is limited to CSS modifications. Tampermonkey scripts can manipulate page content and behavior, whereas Stylus focuses on styling changes.