Pros of generator-chrome-extension

• Utilizes Yeoman, a popular scaffolding tool, providing a more standardized and familiar setup process
• Offers more customization options during project initialization
• Includes built-in support for unit testing with Mocha and Chai

Cons of generator-chrome-extension

• Less focused on modern JavaScript development practices (e.g., no built-in webpack configuration)
• May require more manual setup for advanced features like hot reloading
• Has fewer recent updates compared to chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate

Code Comparison

generator-chrome-extension:

// Gruntfile.js
grunt.initConfig({
  // Task configurations
});
grunt.registerTask('default', ['jshint']);

chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate:

// webpack.config.js
module.exports = {
  entry: {
    popup: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "popup.js"),
    options: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "options.js"),
    background: path.join(__dirname, "src", "js", "background.js")
  },
  // ... other webpack configurations
};

The code comparison highlights the different build tools used: generator-chrome-extension uses Grunt, while chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate uses webpack, which is more modern and flexible for JavaScript projects.

Pros of chrome-extension-boilerplate-react

• Built with React, offering a more modern and component-based development approach
• Includes hot-reloading for faster development and debugging
• Provides a more comprehensive project structure with separate directories for components, pages, and hooks

Cons of chrome-extension-boilerplate-react

• More complex setup and potentially steeper learning curve for developers new to React
• Larger bundle size due to React dependencies, which may impact extension performance
• Less frequently updated compared to chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate

Code Comparison

chrome-extension-boilerplate-react:

import React from 'react';
import { render } from 'react-dom';

import Popup from './Popup';
import './index.css';

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

chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate:

import '../css/popup.css';

console.log('This is the background page.');
console.log('Put the background scripts here.');

The code comparison shows that chrome-extension-boilerplate-react uses React components and JSX syntax, while chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate uses plain JavaScript. This highlights the different approaches to building the extension's UI and logic.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Supports multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Edge) out of the box
• Uses TypeScript for improved type safety and developer experience
• Includes ESLint and Prettier for code quality and formatting

Cons of web-extension-starter

• More complex setup and configuration due to multi-browser support
• Larger project structure, which may be overwhelming for simple extensions
• Steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with TypeScript

Code Comparison

web-extension-starter:

import Browser from 'webextension-polyfill';

export async function getCurrentTab() {
  const [tab] = await Browser.tabs.query({ active: true, currentWindow: true });
  return tab;
}

chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate:

chrome.tabs.query({ active: true, currentWindow: true }, function(tabs) {
  var activeTab = tabs[0];
  chrome.tabs.sendMessage(activeTab.id, { "message": "clicked_browser_action" });
});

The web-extension-starter uses the webextension-polyfill library for cross-browser compatibility and async/await syntax, while chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate uses the Chrome-specific API with callbacks.

web-extension-starter offers a more modern and flexible approach to extension development, supporting multiple browsers and using TypeScript. However, it may be more complex for simple projects. chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate provides a simpler setup focused on Chrome, which could be preferable for developers targeting only that browser or those who prefer plain JavaScript.

Pros of extension-boilerplate

• Includes support for multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera)
• Provides a more comprehensive project structure with separate directories for styles, icons, and scripts
• Includes a basic options page template

Cons of extension-boilerplate

• Less focus on modern JavaScript tooling (no Webpack integration)
• May require more manual configuration for advanced build processes
• Last updated in 2017, potentially outdated compared to chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate

Code Comparison

extension-boilerplate (manifest.json):

{
  "name": "Extension Boilerplate",
  "version": "0.0.1",
  "manifest_version": 2,
  "description": "This is a sample extension description",
  "icons": {
    "16": "icons/icon16.png",
    "48": "icons/icon48.png",
    "128": "icons/icon128.png"
  }
}

chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate (webpack.config.js):

const webpack = require("webpack"),
    path = require("path"),
    fileSystem = require("fs"),
    env = require("./utils/env"),
    CleanWebpackPlugin = require("clean-webpack-plugin").CleanWebpackPlugin,
    CopyWebpackPlugin = require("copy-webpack-plugin"),
    HtmlWebpackPlugin = require("html-webpack-plugin"),
    WriteFilePlugin = require("write-file-webpack-plugin");

The extension-boilerplate provides a more traditional extension structure, while chrome-extension-webpack-boilerplate focuses on integrating modern build tools like Webpack for improved development workflow.