Pros of cannon.js

• Established and well-known physics engine with a longer history
• Larger community and more existing resources for learning and troubleshooting
• More comprehensive documentation and examples

Cons of cannon.js

• No longer actively maintained, with the last update in 2016
• Uses older JavaScript syntax and module system
• May have performance limitations compared to more modern implementations

Code Comparison

cannon.js:

var world = new CANNON.World();
world.gravity.set(0, -9.82, 0);
var shape = new CANNON.Box(new CANNON.Vec3(1, 1, 1));
var body = new CANNON.Body({ mass: 1 });
body.addShape(shape);
world.addBody(body);

cannon-es:

import { World, Box, Body, Vec3 } from 'cannon-es';

const world = new World();
world.gravity.set(0, -9.82, 0);
const shape = new Box(new Vec3(1, 1, 1));
const body = new Body({ mass: 1 });
body.addShape(shape);
world.addBody(body);

The code structure is similar, but cannon-es uses ES6 module imports and more modern JavaScript syntax. cannon-es is essentially a maintained fork of cannon.js, offering improved performance, bug fixes, and better compatibility with modern JavaScript ecosystems while maintaining a similar API.

Pros of Oimo.js

• Lighter weight and potentially faster for simple physics simulations
• Easier to integrate with existing JavaScript projects
• More straightforward API for basic physics operations

Cons of Oimo.js

• Less actively maintained compared to cannon-es
• Fewer advanced features and constraints
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

var world = new OIMO.World({ 
    timestep: 1/60, 
    iterations: 8, 
    broadphase: 2,
    worldscale: 1, 
    random: true
});

cannon-es:

const world = new CANNON.World({
    gravity: new CANNON.Vec3(0, -9.82, 0),
    allowSleep: true
});

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for creating physics worlds, but cannon-es provides more options for fine-tuning the simulation parameters. Oimo.js has a more compact syntax for world creation, while cannon-es offers more explicit control over gravity and sleep states.

Oimo.js is better suited for simpler physics simulations in JavaScript environments, while cannon-es provides a more robust and feature-rich physics engine with better long-term support and development. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, with cannon-es being the preferred option for more complex and demanding physics simulations.

Pros of Ammo.js

• More mature and widely adopted in the industry
• Offers a broader range of physics simulations and features
• Better performance for complex simulations due to its C++ core

Cons of Ammo.js

• Larger file size and potentially slower initial load times
• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and C++ origins
• Less idiomatic JavaScript API, which may feel less natural for web developers

Code Comparison

Ammo.js:

var transform = new Ammo.btTransform();
transform.setIdentity();
transform.setOrigin(new Ammo.btVector3(0, 10, 0));
var motionState = new Ammo.btDefaultMotionState(transform);
var shape = new Ammo.btSphereShape(0.5);

Cannon-es:

const sphereShape = new CANNON.Sphere(0.5);
const sphereBody = new CANNON.Body({
  mass: 5,
  shape: sphereShape,
  position: new CANNON.Vec3(0, 10, 0)
});

Cannon-es provides a more straightforward and JavaScript-friendly API, making it easier for web developers to work with physics simulations. However, Ammo.js offers more advanced features and potentially better performance for complex scenarios, at the cost of a steeper learning curve and larger file size.

Pros of Physijs

• Tighter integration with Three.js, making it easier to use for developers already familiar with Three.js
• Simpler API for basic physics simulations, requiring less setup code
• Built-in support for common physics objects like planes, spheres, and boxes

Cons of Physijs

• Less actively maintained, with the last update in 2017
• Limited to browser environments, as it relies on Web Workers
• Fewer advanced features and customization options compared to cannon-es

Code Comparison

Physijs:

var scene = new Physijs.Scene();
var box = new Physijs.BoxMesh(
    new THREE.BoxGeometry(5, 5, 5),
    new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0xff0000 })
);
scene.add(box);

cannon-es:

const world = new CANNON.World();
const boxShape = new CANNON.Box(new CANNON.Vec3(2.5, 2.5, 2.5));
const boxBody = new CANNON.Body({ mass: 1, shape: boxShape });
world.addBody(boxBody);

Both libraries provide physics simulation capabilities for web-based 3D applications, but cannon-es offers more flexibility and active development. Physijs is more tightly integrated with Three.js, while cannon-es requires additional setup but provides more advanced features and better performance.

Pros of matter-js

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Broader feature set, including constraints and composites
• Easier to use for beginners due to simpler API

Cons of matter-js

• Generally slower performance, especially for complex simulations
• Less accurate for certain types of physics simulations
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for web applications

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);

cannon-es:

const world = new CANNON.World();
world.gravity.set(0, -9.82, 0);
const shape = new CANNON.Box(new CANNON.Vec3(1, 1, 1));
const body = new CANNON.Body({ mass: 1 });
body.addShape(shape);
world.addBody(body);

matter-js provides a more abstracted API, making it easier for beginners to get started. cannon-es offers more granular control over physics properties and is generally more performant for complex simulations. matter-js includes built-in rendering capabilities, while cannon-es typically requires integration with a separate rendering library like Three.js.