Pros of generator-chrome-extension

• Streamlined setup process for Chrome extension development
• Includes boilerplate code and structure for quick start
• Supports modern JavaScript features and build tools

Cons of generator-chrome-extension

• May include unnecessary files or dependencies for simple extensions
• Requires familiarity with Yeoman and its ecosystem
• Limited customization options during initial generation

Code Comparison

generator-chrome-extension:

// Example of generated manifest.json
{
  "name": "__MSG_appName__",
  "version": "0.0.1",
  "manifest_version": 2,
  "description": "__MSG_appDescription__",
  "icons": {
    "16": "images/icon-16.png",
    "128": "images/icon-128.png"
  }
}

Both repositories appear to be the same project, as the comparison is between identical repositories. The code example provided is a typical manifest.json file that would be generated by the generator-chrome-extension tool. This file is essential for Chrome extensions, defining metadata and permissions.

The generator-chrome-extension project aims to simplify the process of creating Chrome extensions by providing a scaffolding tool. It sets up a basic project structure, including necessary files like manifest.json, background scripts, and content scripts. This can save developers time and ensure a consistent starting point for extension development.

Pros of extension-boilerplate

• Simpler setup process, ready to use out of the box
• Includes a basic UI with popup and options pages
• Provides a more comprehensive boilerplate structure

Cons of extension-boilerplate

• Less customizable initial setup compared to generator-chrome-extension
• May include unnecessary files for some projects
• Limited to a specific structure, which might not suit all extension types

Code Comparison

extension-boilerplate:

import ext from "./utils/ext";

ext.runtime.onMessage.addListener(
  function(request, sender, sendResponse) {
    if(request.action === "perform-save") {
      console.log("Extension Type: ", "/* @echo extension */");
      console.log("PERFORM AJAX", request.data);

      sendResponse({ action: "saved" });
    }
  }
);

generator-chrome-extension:

chrome.runtime.onInstalled.addListener(function (details) {
  console.log('previousVersion', details.previousVersion);
});

chrome.tabs.onUpdated.addListener(function (tabId) {
  chrome.tabs.get(tabId, function (tab) {
    if (tab.url.indexOf('chrome://') === 0) {
      return;
    }
  });
});

The code snippets show different approaches to handling extension events. extension-boilerplate uses a custom ext utility, while generator-chrome-extension directly uses Chrome APIs. The former provides a more abstracted approach, while the latter offers more direct control over Chrome-specific functionality.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Supports multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Edge) out of the box
• Uses modern technologies like TypeScript, React, and Webpack
• Includes a comprehensive set of linting and formatting tools

Cons of web-extension-starter

• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners due to its use of advanced technologies
• Potentially more complex setup process compared to generator-chrome-extension

Code Comparison

web-extension-starter:

import React from 'react';
import ReactDOM from 'react-dom';
import Popup from './Popup';

ReactDOM.render(<Popup />, document.getElementById('popup-root'));

generator-chrome-extension:

document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
  var checkPageButton = document.getElementById('checkPage');
  checkPageButton.addEventListener('click', function() {
    chrome.tabs.getSelected(null, function(tab) {
      alert("Hello from your Chrome extension!");
    });
  }, false);
}, false);

The web-extension-starter uses React for rendering the popup, while generator-chrome-extension uses vanilla JavaScript for DOM manipulation and event handling. This showcases the more modern approach of web-extension-starter, which can lead to more maintainable and scalable code but may require more setup and knowledge of React.

Pros of chrome-extension-cli

• More recent updates and active maintenance
• Simpler setup process with fewer dependencies
• Better support for modern JavaScript features and tooling

Cons of chrome-extension-cli

• Less customization options during initial setup
• Fewer boilerplate templates available
• Limited documentation compared to generator-chrome-extension

Code Comparison

generator-chrome-extension:

'use strict';
const Generator = require('yeoman-generator');
const chalk = require('chalk');
const yosay = require('yosay');

module.exports = class extends Generator {
  // ...
};

chrome-extension-cli:

#!/usr/bin/env node

const fs = require('fs-extra');
const path = require('path');
const chalk = require('chalk');
const { program } = require('commander');

// ...

Both projects use similar dependencies like chalk for colorized output, but chrome-extension-cli uses a more modern approach with ES6 modules and the commander library for CLI argument parsing. generator-chrome-extension relies on the Yeoman framework, which provides a more structured but potentially more complex setup.

chrome-extension-cli offers a more streamlined experience for developers who want to quickly set up a Chrome extension project with minimal configuration. However, generator-chrome-extension may be better suited for those who need more customization options and don't mind a slightly steeper learning curve.