Pros of Aseprite

• More advanced features for professional pixel art creation
• Better performance and optimization for larger projects
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Aseprite

• Paid software, not free like Piskel
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less accessible for quick, simple sprite creation

Code Comparison

Aseprite (C++):

void Editor::onMouseMove(EditorMouseMessage* msg)
{
  tools::Pointer pointer(msg->position(), msg->button(), msg->modifiers());
  m_state->onMouseMove(pointer);
  updateStatusBar();
}

Piskel (JavaScript):

ns.PiskelController.prototype.setCurrentFrameIndex = function (index) {
  this.currentFrameIndex = index;
  this.piskel.setCurrentFrameIndex(index);
  this.onFrameSelected(index);
};

Summary

Aseprite is a more powerful, feature-rich tool for professional pixel artists, offering advanced capabilities and optimized performance. However, it comes at a cost and may be overwhelming for beginners. Piskel, on the other hand, is free and more accessible for quick sprite creation, but lacks some of the advanced features and optimization found in Aseprite. The code comparison shows that Aseprite is built with C++, while Piskel uses JavaScript, reflecting their different approaches to performance and platform compatibility.

Pros of pixel-art-react

• Built with modern React, making it easier to integrate into existing React projects
• Offers a more lightweight and focused pixel art creation experience
• Provides real-time preview and export options for animations

Cons of pixel-art-react

• Less feature-rich compared to Piskel's comprehensive toolset
• Limited file format support for imports and exports
• Smaller community and fewer updates/maintenance

Code Comparison

pixel-art-react:

<PixelCanvas
  width={32}
  height={32}
  pixels={pixels}
  onPixelClick={handlePixelClick}
/>

Piskel:

var piskel = new Piskel(width, height, "New Piskel");
var layer = piskel.getLayerAt(0);
layer.setPixel(x, y, color);

Both projects offer pixel-based drawing capabilities, but pixel-art-react uses a more React-centric approach with components and props, while Piskel uses a more traditional object-oriented structure. pixel-art-react is better suited for integration into React applications, while Piskel provides a standalone application with more extensive features for pixel art creation and animation.

Pros of LibreSprite

• More active development with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Broader feature set, including animation tools and advanced color management
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of LibreSprite

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex interface
• Larger file size and resource requirements
• Less web-friendly, as it's primarily a desktop application

Code Comparison

LibreSprite (C++):

void Editor::onMouseMove(MouseMessage* msg) {
  EditorStatePtr state = m_state.get();
  state->onMouseMove(this, msg);
  updateStatusBar();
}

Piskel (JavaScript):

ns.DrawingController.prototype.onMouseMove = function (event) {
  var coords = this.getSpriteCoordinates(event.clientX, event.clientY);
  this.currentToolBehavior.moveToolAt(coords.x, coords.y);
};

Both repositories implement mouse movement handling, but LibreSprite uses C++ with a more object-oriented approach, while Piskel uses JavaScript with a prototype-based structure. LibreSprite's implementation appears more modular, delegating the mouse move logic to a state object, whereas Piskel's approach is more direct.

Pros of Pixelorama

• More comprehensive feature set, including animation tools and layer management
• Active development with frequent updates and new features
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of Pixelorama

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex interface
• Larger file size and potentially higher system requirements

Code Comparison

Pixelorama (GDScript):

func _on_Tool_changed(tool: Tool) -> void:
    Global.current_project.selected_tool = tool
    for t in tools:
        t.set_pressed(t == tool)

Piskel (JavaScript):

ns.PiskelController.prototype.setCurrentToolBehavior = function (toolId) {
  this.currentToolBehavior = this.toolController.getToolById(toolId);
  this.piskelController.setCurrentSelectedColor(this.paletteController.getSelectedColor());
};

Both projects use different programming languages, with Pixelorama utilizing GDScript (Godot Engine) and Piskel using JavaScript. Pixelorama's code structure appears more object-oriented, while Piskel's code is more functional in nature. The code snippets demonstrate tool selection functionality in both applications.

Pros of Pencil

• More comprehensive animation toolset, including support for vector graphics and audio
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Active development with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of Pencil

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage
• Less focus on pixel art specifically compared to Piskel

Code Comparison

Pencil (C++):

void MainWindow::importMovieVideo()
{
    QString filePath = QFileDialog::getOpenFileName(this, tr("Import Movie..."),
                                                    "",
                                                    tr("AVI (*.avi);;MPEG(*.mpg);;MOV(*.mov);;MP4(*.mp4);;WMV(*.wmv)"));
    if (filePath.isEmpty())
    {
        return;
    }
    mEditor->importMovie(filePath, ImportExportDialog::Import, MOVIE);
}

Piskel (JavaScript):

ns.PiskelController.prototype.createPiskel = function (width, height, fps, descriptor, preserveState) {
  if (!preserveState) {
    this.resetHistory();
  }

  if (descriptor) {
    this.piskel = pskl.model.Piskel.fromDescriptor(descriptor, fps);
  } else {
    this.piskel = new pskl.model.Piskel(width, height, fps);
  }

  this.currentFrameIndex = 0;
  this.currentLayerIndex = 0;

  this.onPiskelReset();
};