Pros of Pyodide

• More mature and established project with a larger ecosystem
• Offers direct access to Python's scientific computing stack (NumPy, Pandas, etc.)
• Provides a REPL for interactive Python execution in the browser

Cons of Pyodide

• Larger file size and longer initial load time
• Requires more setup and configuration for integration into web applications
• Less focus on seamless HTML integration compared to PyScript

Code Comparison

PyScript:

<py-script>
print("Hello, PyScript!")
</py-script>

Pyodide:

pyodide.runPython(`
    print("Hello, Pyodide!")
`)

PyScript provides a more HTML-centric approach, allowing Python code to be embedded directly in HTML using custom tags. Pyodide, on the other hand, requires JavaScript to execute Python code, offering more flexibility but with additional setup.

Both projects aim to bring Python to the web browser, but they cater to slightly different use cases. PyScript focuses on simplicity and ease of use for web developers, while Pyodide provides a more comprehensive Python runtime environment with access to scientific libraries, making it suitable for more complex applications and data analysis in the browser.

Pros of Brython

• More mature project with longer development history
• Supports a wider range of Python libraries and modules
• Better performance for complex Python operations

Cons of Brython

• Larger file size, which can impact page load times
• Less seamless integration with HTML compared to PyScript
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Python in the browser

Code Comparison

Brython:

from browser import document, alert

def greet(ev):
    alert(f"Hello, {document['name'].value}!")

document['greet'].bind('click', greet)

PyScript:

<py-script>
def greet(event):
    name = document.querySelector("#name").value
    alert(f"Hello, {name}!")

document.querySelector("#greet").addEventListener("click", greet)
</py-script>

Both Brython and PyScript aim to bring Python to the browser, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Brython focuses on providing a more complete Python environment, while PyScript emphasizes ease of use and integration with HTML. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with Python and web development.

Pros of Skulpt

• Lightweight and faster execution for simple Python programs
• More mature project with longer development history
• Better support for older browsers and legacy systems

Cons of Skulpt

• Limited support for advanced Python features and libraries
• Less active development and community engagement
• Focused primarily on educational use cases

Code Comparison

Skulpt:

import skulpt
def greet(name):
    print("Hello, " + name + "!")
greet("World")

PyScript:

<py-script>
def greet(name):
    print(f"Hello, {name}!")
greet("World")
</py-script>

PyScript offers a more modern approach, integrating directly with HTML and providing access to a wider range of Python libraries. It aims to bring the full power of Python to the browser, including support for data science and visualization tools.

Skulpt, on the other hand, focuses on providing a lightweight Python environment for educational purposes, with faster execution for simple programs but limited advanced features.

While Skulpt has a longer history, PyScript is gaining momentum with its more comprehensive approach to running Python in the browser, backed by Anaconda and the broader Python community.

Pros of Iodide

• More mature project with a longer development history
• Supports multiple programming languages, not just Python
• Includes built-in data visualization tools

Cons of Iodide

• Less active development and community support
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Limited integration with external libraries compared to PyScript

Code Comparison

Iodide:

%% js
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
var chart = new Chart(ctx, {
    type: 'bar',
    data: {labels: data, datasets: [{data: data}]}
});

PyScript:

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
plt.bar(range(len(data)), data)
plt.show()

Both projects aim to bring interactive programming to the web browser, but they take different approaches. Iodide offers a more comprehensive environment for data science and visualization, supporting multiple languages. PyScript focuses on bringing Python specifically to the web, with easier setup and stronger integration with Python libraries. The code examples show how data visualization can be achieved in both environments, with Iodide using JavaScript and PyScript leveraging Python's matplotlib library.

Pros of JupyterLite

• Provides a full Jupyter notebook environment in the browser
• Supports multiple kernels (Python, JavaScript, R)
• Offers a familiar interface for Jupyter users

Cons of JupyterLite

• Larger file size and potentially slower initial load times
• More complex setup and configuration compared to PyScript
• Limited to Jupyter-specific features and workflows

Code Comparison

PyScript:

<py-script>
print("Hello, PyScript!")
import numpy as np
data = np.random.rand(10)
print(data.mean())
</py-script>

JupyterLite:

# In a Jupyter notebook cell
print("Hello, JupyterLite!")
import numpy as np
data = np.random.rand(10)
print(data.mean())

Both examples achieve similar results, but PyScript integrates directly into HTML, while JupyterLite runs within a notebook environment. PyScript offers more flexibility for web integration, while JupyterLite provides a more comprehensive scientific computing environment.