Pros of PHPStan

• More focused on static analysis and type checking
• Larger community and more extensive documentation
• Easier to integrate into existing projects without modifying code

Cons of PHPStan

• Limited ability to automatically fix detected issues
• May require more manual intervention to resolve identified problems
• Less flexibility in customizing analysis rules compared to Rector

Code Comparison

PHPStan example:

<?php
function foo(int $a, int $b): int {
    return $a + $b;
}
foo('1', 2);

PHPStan would detect the type mismatch in the function call.

Rector example:

<?php
$user->getName();

Rector could automatically refactor this to:

<?php
$user?->getName();

Both tools aim to improve PHP code quality, but they approach it differently. PHPStan focuses on identifying potential issues through static analysis, while Rector emphasizes automated code refactoring and modernization. PHPStan is generally easier to adopt in existing projects, as it doesn't modify code directly. Rector, on the other hand, offers more powerful refactoring capabilities but may require more careful integration to avoid unintended changes. The choice between the two depends on specific project needs and development workflows.

Pros of Psalm

• Focuses on static analysis and type checking, providing deeper insights into potential type-related issues
• Offers a wider range of checks and analysis capabilities, including taint analysis and security checks
• Integrates well with popular IDEs and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of Psalm

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive configuration options and advanced features
• May produce more false positives, requiring careful tuning of configuration

Code Comparison

Psalm:

<?php
/** @psalm-suppress PossiblyUndefinedMethod */
$result = $object->someMethod();

Rector:

<?php
$result = $object->someMethod();

Key Differences

• Psalm focuses on static analysis and type checking, while Rector specializes in automated code refactoring and upgrades
• Psalm provides more in-depth analysis of code quality and potential issues, whereas Rector actively modifies code to improve it
• Psalm requires more configuration and annotation to suppress warnings, while Rector's transformations are more straightforward

Use Cases

• Use Psalm for ongoing code quality checks, type safety, and identifying potential bugs
• Use Rector for automated code upgrades, enforcing coding standards, and large-scale refactoring tasks

Both tools can be valuable in a PHP development workflow, often complementing each other to improve code quality and maintainability.

Pros of Phan

• More focused on static analysis and type checking
• Supports a wider range of PHP versions (5.6 to 8.2)
• Better suited for large-scale projects with complex codebases

Cons of Phan

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• May produce more false positives, requiring manual verification
• Less emphasis on automatic code refactoring

Code Comparison

Phan (static analysis):

<?php
function example($param) {
    return $param->undefinedMethod();
}

Rector (code transformation):

<?php
$config->ruleWithConfiguration(RemoveUnusedPrivatePropertyRector::class, [
    'excludes' => ['SomeClass']
]);

Key Differences

• Phan focuses on detecting potential errors and type inconsistencies, while Rector specializes in automated code refactoring and upgrades.
• Phan provides more in-depth static analysis, whereas Rector offers broader code transformation capabilities.
• Phan is better for ongoing code quality maintenance, while Rector excels at large-scale codebase modernization and framework upgrades.

Both tools serve different purposes in the PHP ecosystem, with Phan being more suitable for continuous code quality checks and Rector for automated code modifications and upgrades.

Pros of PHP-CS-Fixer

• More focused on code style and formatting
• Extensive set of predefined rules for consistent coding standards
• Faster execution for style-related fixes

Cons of PHP-CS-Fixer

• Limited ability to perform complex code transformations
• Less flexibility in creating custom rules
• Primarily focused on PSR standards and may not cover all project-specific needs

Code Comparison

PHP-CS-Fixer:

$fixer = new PhpCsFixer\Fixer\ClassNotation\VisibilityRequiredFixer();
$fixer->fix($file);

Rector:

$rector = new Rector\Rector\ClassMethod\AddReturnTypeDeclarationRector();
$rector->refactor($node);

Summary

PHP-CS-Fixer excels in maintaining consistent code style and formatting, offering a wide range of predefined rules. It's faster for style-related fixes but has limitations in complex code transformations. Rector, on the other hand, provides more powerful refactoring capabilities and greater flexibility in creating custom rules, making it better suited for larger-scale code modifications and upgrades. The choice between the two depends on whether the primary focus is on code style (PHP-CS-Fixer) or more comprehensive code refactoring (Rector).

Pros of PHP_CodeSniffer

• Widely adopted and well-established in the PHP community
• Extensive set of pre-defined coding standards (PSR-1, PSR-2, PSR-12, etc.)
• Ability to create custom coding standards and sniffs

Cons of PHP_CodeSniffer

• Limited to detecting and reporting coding standard violations
• Cannot automatically fix complex code issues or perform refactoring
• Requires manual intervention to fix reported issues

Code Comparison

PHP_CodeSniffer (detecting a coding standard violation):

<?php
if($condition){
    echo "Indentation error";
}

Rector (automatically fixing a code issue):

<?php
// Before
$result = join(',', $items);

// After
$result = implode(',', $items);

PHP_CodeSniffer focuses on detecting coding standard violations and reporting them, while Rector is designed to automatically refactor and upgrade PHP code. PHP_CodeSniffer excels at maintaining consistent coding styles across projects, but Rector offers more advanced code transformation capabilities, including upgrading PHP versions and applying complex refactoring patterns.

Pros of PHP-Parser

• More focused and lightweight, specifically designed for parsing PHP code
• Provides a lower-level API, offering greater flexibility for custom analysis and transformations
• Has a longer history and is more widely used in various PHP tools and projects

Cons of PHP-Parser

• Requires more manual work to implement complex code transformations
• Lacks built-in refactoring and code modification capabilities
• Steeper learning curve for developers who need to perform high-level code analysis or transformations

Code Comparison

PHP-Parser example:

$parser = (new ParserFactory)->create(ParserFactory::PREFER_PHP7);
$ast = $parser->parse($code);
$nodeFinder = new NodeFinder;
$variables = $nodeFinder->findInstanceOf($ast, Variable::class);

Rector example:

$rector = new RectorContainer();
$rector->addPhpFile($filePath);
$rector->registerRules([
    RemoveUnusedVariableRector::class,
    TypedPropertyRector::class,
]);
$rector->refactor();

PHP-Parser provides a lower-level API for parsing and analyzing PHP code, while Rector offers a higher-level interface for automated refactoring and code transformations. PHP-Parser is more flexible but requires more manual work, whereas Rector provides ready-to-use tools for common refactoring tasks.