Pros of Matter.js

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and ecosystem
• Built-in rendering capabilities

Cons of Matter.js

• Slower performance for complex simulations
• Less accurate physics simulation
• Larger file size

Code Comparison

Matter.js:

var engine = Matter.Engine.create();
var world = engine.world;
var box = Matter.Bodies.rectangle(200, 200, 80, 80);
Matter.World.add(world, box);
Matter.Engine.run(engine);

Planck.js:

var world = planck.World();
var box = world.createBody().createFixture(planck.Box(1, 1));
box.setPosition(planck.Vec2(2, 2));
world.step(1/60);

Summary

Matter.js offers a more user-friendly experience with better documentation and built-in rendering, making it suitable for quick prototypes and simpler projects. Planck.js, on the other hand, provides better performance and more accurate physics simulation, making it ideal for complex simulations and games requiring precise physics. The code comparison shows that Matter.js has a slightly more intuitive API, while Planck.js offers more granular control over the physics simulation.

Pros of Stage.js

• Focuses on 2D game development with a higher-level API
• Provides built-in support for animations, sprites, and scene management
• Easier to use for beginners and those primarily interested in 2D game creation

Cons of Stage.js

• Less flexible for complex physics simulations compared to Planck.js
• Limited to 2D applications, while Planck.js can be extended for 3D use
• Smaller community and fewer resources available

Code Comparison

Stage.js example:

var stage = Stage.create();
var box = stage.createSprite().pin({
  handle: 0.5,
  width: 100,
  height: 100,
  rotation: Math.PI / 4
});

Planck.js example:

var world = planck.World();
var body = world.createBody({
  type: 'dynamic',
  position: planck.Vec2(0, 0),
  angle: Math.PI / 4
});
body.createFixture(planck.Box(0.5, 0.5));

Stage.js is more focused on creating visual elements for games, while Planck.js provides lower-level physics simulation capabilities. Stage.js offers a simpler API for game development, but Planck.js offers more flexibility for complex physics-based applications.

Pros of p2.js

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Supports a wider range of physics simulations, including springs and constraints
• Better documentation and examples available

Cons of p2.js

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• May be more complex to use for simple 2D physics scenarios

Code Comparison

p2.js:

var world = new p2.World();
var boxShape = new p2.Box({ width: 1, height: 1 });
var boxBody = new p2.Body({ mass: 1, position: [0, 5] });
boxBody.addShape(boxShape);
world.addBody(boxBody);

planck.js:

var world = planck.World();
var boxBody = world.createBody({
  type: 'dynamic',
  position: planck.Vec2(0, 5)
});
boxBody.createFixture(planck.Box(0.5, 0.5));

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic 2D physics simulations, but planck.js tends to have a more concise syntax and smaller footprint. p2.js provides more advanced features and broader physics capabilities, making it suitable for more complex simulations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of physics complexity needed.

Pros of Box2D.js

• Direct port of the popular C++ Box2D physics engine, ensuring high compatibility and familiarity for developers
• Extensive documentation and community support due to its long-standing presence in the game development ecosystem
• Proven track record in numerous production-level games and applications

Cons of Box2D.js

• Larger file size and potentially higher memory footprint compared to Planck.js
• May have performance overhead due to being compiled from C++ to JavaScript via Emscripten
• Less idiomatic JavaScript API, as it closely follows the C++ structure

Code Comparison

Box2D.js:

var world = new b2World(new b2Vec2(0, -10));
var bodyDef = new b2BodyDef();
bodyDef.type = b2Body.b2_dynamicBody;
var body = world.CreateBody(bodyDef);

Planck.js:

var world = planck.World({gravity: planck.Vec2(0, -10)});
var body = world.createBody({
  type: 'dynamic'
});

Both libraries provide similar functionality, but Planck.js offers a more JavaScript-friendly API with a smaller footprint. Box2D.js, being a direct port, maintains closer alignment with the original C++ implementation, which may be preferable for developers familiar with Box2D.

Pros of PhysicsJS

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Supports a wider range of physics simulations, including soft-body physics
• Modular architecture allows for easy customization and extension

Cons of PhysicsJS

• Less actively maintained (last update was several years ago)
• Performance may be slower for large-scale simulations
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

PhysicsJS:

var world = Physics();
world.add(Physics.body('circle', {
  x: 50,
  y: 30,
  radius: 20
}));
world.render();

Planck.js:

var world = planck.World();
var body = world.createBody();
var circle = planck.Circle(20);
body.createFixture(circle);
body.setPosition(planck.Vec2(50, 30));

Both libraries allow for creating physics worlds and adding bodies, but PhysicsJS uses a more declarative approach, while Planck.js offers a more programmatic API. PhysicsJS provides a built-in renderer, whereas Planck.js requires separate rendering implementation.