use-cannon

Pros of matter-js

• Pure JavaScript physics engine, making it easier to integrate into various JavaScript projects
• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Broader range of features, including cloth, soft bodies, and constraints

Cons of matter-js

• Generally slower performance compared to use-cannon
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less optimized for React and Three.js integration

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);

use-cannon:

const [ref] = useBox(() => ({
  mass: 1,
  position: [0, 5, 0],
}));
return <mesh ref={ref}>{/* Mesh contents */}</mesh>;

Summary

matter-js is a versatile pure JavaScript physics engine with extensive features and documentation. It's suitable for various JavaScript projects but may have performance limitations. use-cannon, on the other hand, is optimized for React and Three.js integration, offering better performance but with a more focused feature set. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the developer's familiarity with React and Three.js.

Pros of cannon.js

• Standalone physics engine, usable in various JavaScript environments
• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Offers more direct control over the physics simulation

Cons of cannon.js

• Requires more manual setup and integration with rendering libraries
• Less optimized for React and Three.js ecosystems
• May have a steeper learning curve for React developers

Code Comparison

cannon.js:

const world = new CANNON.World();
const sphereShape = new CANNON.Sphere(1);
const sphereBody = new CANNON.Body({
  mass: 5,
  shape: sphereShape
});
world.addBody(sphereBody);

use-cannon:

const [ref, api] = useBox(() => ({
  mass: 5,
  position: [0, 10, 0],
}));
return <mesh ref={ref}>
  <boxBufferGeometry />
  <meshStandardMaterial />
</mesh>

Summary

cannon.js is a versatile physics engine for JavaScript, while use-cannon is a React hooks-based wrapper for cannon.js, specifically designed for use with React and Three.js. use-cannon simplifies the integration of physics in React-based 3D applications, offering a more declarative approach. However, cannon.js provides more flexibility and can be used in a wider range of projects beyond the React ecosystem. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preferred development approach.

Pros of Oimo.js

• Lightweight and fast physics engine
• Supports both 2D and 3D physics simulations
• Easy to integrate with Three.js and other WebGL libraries

Cons of Oimo.js

• Less active development and community support
• Limited documentation and examples
• Fewer advanced features compared to use-cannon

Code Comparison

Oimo.js:

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

var body = world.add({
    type: 'sphere',
    size: [1],
    pos: [0, 10, 0],
    move: true
});

use-cannon:

const { Physics, useSphere } = useCanon();

function Scene() {
  return (
    <Physics>
      <Sphere position={[0, 10, 0]} />
    </Physics>
  );
}

function Sphere(props) {
  const [ref] = useSphere(() => ({ mass: 1, ...props }));
  return <mesh ref={ref} />;
}

Oimo.js provides a more traditional JavaScript API, while use-cannon integrates seamlessly with React and Three.js, offering a more declarative approach to physics simulations. use-cannon also provides hooks for easy integration with React components, making it more suitable for React-based projects.

Pros of Ammo.js

• More mature and widely adopted physics engine
• Supports a broader range of physics simulations and features
• Better performance for complex simulations with many objects

Cons of Ammo.js

• Steeper learning curve and more complex API
• Requires manual memory management
• Less integration-friendly with modern JavaScript frameworks

Code Comparison

use-cannon:

const [ref] = useBox(() => ({
  mass: 1,
  position: [0, 5, 0],
}))

return <mesh ref={ref}>
  <boxGeometry />
  <meshStandardMaterial />
</mesh>

Ammo.js:

const shape = new Ammo.btBoxShape(new Ammo.btVector3(1, 1, 1))
const transform = new Ammo.btTransform()
transform.setIdentity()
transform.setOrigin(new Ammo.btVector3(0, 5, 0))
const body = new Ammo.btRigidBody(new Ammo.btRigidBodyConstructionInfo(1, motionState, shape))
physicsWorld.addRigidBody(body)

use-cannon provides a more React-friendly API with hooks and declarative syntax, while Ammo.js offers lower-level control but requires more boilerplate code. use-cannon abstracts away much of the complexity, making it easier to integrate physics into React applications, especially when used with Three.js. Ammo.js, being a direct port of Bullet Physics, provides more advanced features and better performance for complex simulations at the cost of increased complexity.