Pros of highlight.js

• Lightweight and fast, with a smaller bundle size
• Supports a wide range of programming languages out of the box
• Easy to integrate and use with minimal configuration

Cons of highlight.js

• Less accurate syntax highlighting for complex language constructs
• Limited customization options for themes and styles
• Relies on regex-based parsing, which can lead to inconsistencies

Code Comparison

highlight.js:

<pre><code class="language-javascript">
function greet(name) {
  console.log(`Hello, ${name}!`);
}
</code></pre>

Shiki:

const shiki = require('shiki')

shiki.getHighlighter({
  theme: 'nord'
}).then(highlighter => {
  console.log(highlighter.codeToHtml(`console.log('shiki');`, { lang: 'js' }))
})

highlight.js uses a simpler approach with HTML classes, while Shiki requires more setup but offers more precise highlighting. highlight.js is easier to implement for basic use cases, whereas Shiki provides more accurate and customizable syntax highlighting at the cost of increased complexity and bundle size.

Pros of Prism

• Lightweight and fast, with a smaller footprint
• Extensive language support out-of-the-box
• Large ecosystem of plugins and themes

Cons of Prism

• Less accurate syntax highlighting for complex languages
• Requires manual updates for new language features
• Limited customization options for highlighting rules

Code Comparison

Prism:

Prism.highlightAll();

Shiki:

const shiki = require('shiki');

shiki.getHighlighter({
  theme: 'nord'
}).then(highlighter => {
  const code = highlighter.codeToHtml(`console.log('hello')`, { lang: 'js' });
});

Prism offers a simpler API for basic usage, while Shiki provides more control over the highlighting process. Shiki's approach allows for more accurate syntax highlighting, especially for complex languages, but comes with a slightly more verbose setup.

Shiki uses TextMate grammars for parsing, which results in more precise and consistent highlighting across different languages. Prism, on the other hand, uses custom regular expressions for each language, which can sometimes lead to inconsistencies or inaccuracies in highlighting.

Overall, Prism is a good choice for projects requiring a lightweight solution with broad language support, while Shiki is better suited for applications demanding high-fidelity syntax highlighting and greater customization options.

Pros of CodeMirror 5

• Full-featured code editor with extensive customization options
• Supports real-time editing and collaborative features
• Large ecosystem of plugins and extensions

Cons of CodeMirror 5

• Heavier and more complex to implement for simple syntax highlighting
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases
• May have performance issues with very large files

Code Comparison

Shiki (basic usage):

import { getHighlighter } from 'shiki'

const highlighter = await getHighlighter({ theme: 'nord' })
const html = highlighter.codeToHtml(code, { lang: 'js' })

CodeMirror 5 (basic setup):

var editor = CodeMirror.fromTextArea(document.getElementById("code"), {
  lineNumbers: true,
  mode: "javascript"
});

Summary

Shiki is a lightweight syntax highlighter that focuses on generating static HTML with accurate syntax highlighting. It's ideal for scenarios where you need to display code snippets without editing functionality.

CodeMirror 5 is a full-fledged code editor that offers real-time editing, extensive customization, and a rich ecosystem of plugins. It's better suited for applications requiring interactive code editing and more advanced features.

Choose Shiki for simple, accurate syntax highlighting in static contexts, and CodeMirror 5 for interactive code editing and more complex use cases.

Pros of Monaco Editor

• Full-featured code editor with advanced capabilities like IntelliSense, error checking, and refactoring
• Supports a wide range of programming languages out-of-the-box
• Highly customizable with extensive API for integration and extension

Cons of Monaco Editor

• Larger bundle size and more complex setup compared to lightweight syntax highlighters
• May be overkill for simple code highlighting use cases
• Requires more resources and can impact performance on low-end devices

Code Comparison

Monaco Editor:

import * as monaco from 'monaco-editor';

monaco.editor.create(document.getElementById('container'), {
    value: 'console.log("Hello, world!");',
    language: 'javascript'
});

Shiki:

import { getHighlighter } from 'shiki';

const highlighter = await getHighlighter({ theme: 'nord' });
const html = highlighter.codeToHtml('console.log("Hello, world!");', { lang: 'js' });

Monaco Editor provides a full editing experience, while Shiki focuses on syntax highlighting. Monaco offers more features but requires more setup, whereas Shiki is simpler to use for basic highlighting needs.

Pros of Rouge

• Written in Ruby, making it a natural choice for Ruby-based projects
• Extensive language support with over 100 lexers
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions

Cons of Rouge

• Generally slower performance compared to Shiki
• Less flexible theming options
• Limited to server-side rendering, not suitable for client-side highlighting

Code Comparison

Rouge:

require 'rouge'
formatter = Rouge::Formatters::HTML.new
lexer = Rouge::Lexers::Ruby.new
formatter.format(lexer.lex("puts 'Hello, world!'"))

Shiki:

const shiki = require('shiki')
shiki.getHighlighter({
  theme: 'nord'
}).then(highlighter => {
  console.log(highlighter.codeToHtml(`console.log('Hello, world!')`, { lang: 'js' }))
})

Rouge is a Ruby-based syntax highlighter that offers extensive language support and is well-suited for Ruby projects. It's actively maintained but may have slower performance compared to Shiki. Rouge is primarily designed for server-side rendering.

Shiki, on the other hand, is a JavaScript-based syntax highlighter that uses TextMate grammars for precise highlighting. It offers better performance and more flexible theming options. Shiki can be used for both server-side and client-side highlighting, making it more versatile for web applications.