Pros of pixel-editor

• More comprehensive color palette management with support for multiple palettes
• Advanced animation features, including onion skinning and frame management
• Responsive design that adapts well to different screen sizes

Cons of pixel-editor

• Less intuitive user interface for beginners
• Fewer export options compared to PixelCraft
• Limited customization options for tools and brushes

Code Comparison

PixelCraft (JavaScript):

function flood(x, y, targetColor, fillColor) {
  if (x < 0 || x >= width || y < 0 || y >= height) return;
  if (getColorAtPixel(x, y) !== targetColor) return;
  setPixel(x, y, fillColor);
  flood(x + 1, y, targetColor, fillColor);
  flood(x - 1, y, targetColor, fillColor);
  flood(x, y + 1, targetColor, fillColor);
  flood(x, y - 1, targetColor, fillColor);
}

pixel-editor (JavaScript):

function floodFill(x, y, newColor) {
  const oldColor = getPixel(x, y);
  if (oldColor === newColor) return;
  const stack = [[x, y]];
  while (stack.length) {
    const [cx, cy] = stack.pop();
    if (getPixel(cx, cy) === oldColor) {
      setPixel(cx, cy, newColor);
      stack.push([cx + 1, cy], [cx - 1, cy], [cx, cy + 1], [cx, cy - 1]);
    }
  }
}

Both implementations showcase flood fill algorithms, with PixelCraft using recursion and pixel-editor using an iterative approach with a stack.

Pros of pixel-art-react

• Built with React, offering a modern and component-based architecture
• Includes features like palette management and frame-by-frame animation
• More actively maintained with recent updates and contributions

Cons of pixel-art-react

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex setup
• Requires knowledge of React ecosystem for customization
• Less focused on simplicity and ease of use for beginners

Code Comparison

PixelCraft (HTML/CSS/JavaScript):

function draw(x, y) {
  ctx.fillStyle = currentColor;
  ctx.fillRect(x, y, 1, 1);
}

pixel-art-react (React/JavaScript):

const paintPixel = (x, y) => {
  dispatch(paintCell(x, y, paletteColor));
};

Both projects aim to create pixel art tools, but pixel-art-react offers more advanced features and a React-based architecture, while PixelCraft focuses on simplicity with vanilla JavaScript. pixel-art-react may be better suited for larger projects or those already using React, while PixelCraft could be ideal for quick implementations or learning purposes.

Pros of Aseprite

• More feature-rich and professional-grade pixel art tool
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements
• Supports advanced features like animation and custom brushes

Cons of Aseprite

• Closed-source and paid software
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires installation and system resources

Code Comparison

PixelCraft (JavaScript):

function draw(x, y) {
  ctx.fillStyle = currentColor;
  ctx.fillRect(x * pixelSize, y * pixelSize, pixelSize, pixelSize);
  saveToUndoStack();
}

Aseprite (C++):

void Editor::drawPixel(int x, int y, color_t color)
{
  m_document->getSprite()->putPixel(x, y, color);
  m_document->notifyPixelChanged(x, y);
}

PixelCraft is a simple, web-based pixel art editor, while Aseprite is a comprehensive desktop application. PixelCraft offers basic drawing functionality with a focus on accessibility, whereas Aseprite provides advanced tools for professional pixel artists. The code comparison shows the difference in complexity and language choice between the two projects.

Pros of Piskel

• More mature and feature-rich project with a larger user base
• Offers both web-based and desktop applications
• Includes advanced features like onion skinning and frame management

Cons of Piskel

• Larger codebase may be more challenging for new contributors
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to PixelCraft
• Heavier resource usage due to more complex features

Code Comparison

PixelCraft (JavaScript):

function fillPixel(x, y) {
  ctx.fillStyle = currentColor.value;
  ctx.fillRect(x * pixelSize, y * pixelSize, pixelSize, pixelSize);
  saveState();
}

Piskel (JavaScript):

ns.PixelUtils.resizePixel = function (pixel, zoom) {
  return {
    x : Math.floor(pixel.x / zoom),
    y : Math.floor(pixel.y / zoom)
  };
};

Both projects use JavaScript for their core functionality. PixelCraft's code appears more straightforward and focused on basic pixel manipulation, while Piskel's code shows more complex utility functions for handling various pixel operations and zoom levels.

Pros of poxi

• More advanced rendering capabilities, including 3D voxel support
• Better performance due to WebGL implementation
• More extensive documentation and examples

Cons of poxi

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less focus on traditional 2D pixel art creation
• Fewer built-in tools for simple pixel editing

Code Comparison

PixelCraft (JavaScript):

function drawPixel(x, y, color) {
  ctx.fillStyle = color;
  ctx.fillRect(x * pixelSize, y * pixelSize, pixelSize, pixelSize);
}

poxi (WebGL Shader):

void main() {
  vec4 color = texture2D(u_texture, v_texCoord);
  gl_FragColor = color;
}

PixelCraft focuses on simple 2D pixel manipulation using canvas, while poxi utilizes WebGL shaders for more complex rendering, including 3D voxels.

PixelCraft is better suited for beginners and traditional pixel art creation, offering a simpler interface and tools specifically designed for 2D pixel editing. poxi, on the other hand, provides more advanced features and better performance, making it ideal for more complex projects and 3D voxel art.

Both projects have their merits, and the choice between them depends on the user's needs and experience level. PixelCraft is more accessible for those new to pixel art, while poxi offers more powerful capabilities for advanced users and 3D projects.

Pros of Pixelorama

• More feature-rich with advanced tools like layers, animation frames, and color palettes
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of Pixelorama

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex interface
• Requires installation, not web-based like PixelCraft
• Larger file size and system requirements

Code Comparison

Pixelorama (GDScript):

func _on_Tool_pressed(tool_name: String) -> void:
    Global.current_tool = tool_name
    for t in tool_buttons:
        t.pressed = t.name == tool_name

PixelCraft (JavaScript):

function setTool(tool) {
    currentTool = tool;
    document.querySelectorAll('.tool').forEach(el => {
        el.classList.toggle('active', el.dataset.tool === tool);
    });
}

Both projects implement tool selection, but Pixelorama uses GDScript (Godot's scripting language) while PixelCraft uses JavaScript for web-based functionality. Pixelorama's approach is more integrated with its game engine environment, while PixelCraft's code is simpler and directly manipulates DOM elements.