Pros of PHP_CodeSniffer

• More established and widely adopted in the PHP community
• Supports a broader range of PHP versions
• Includes built-in standards like PSR-1, PSR-2, and PSR-12

Cons of PHP_CodeSniffer

• Less focused on modern PHP practices and newer language features
• Slower performance when processing large codebases
• Configuration can be more complex for custom rulesets

Code Comparison

PHP_CodeSniffer:

<?php
$sniff = new PHP_CodeSniffer\Sniffs\Sniff();
$sniff->register();
$sniff->process($phpcsFile, $stackPtr);

Slevomat Coding Standard:

<?php
$sniff = new SlevomatCodingStandard\Sniffs\Sniff();
$sniff->register();
$sniff->process($phpcsFile, $stackPtr);

Both projects use similar APIs for creating and registering sniffs, but Slevomat Coding Standard focuses on more modern PHP practices and stricter rules. PHP_CodeSniffer provides a broader foundation for PHP code analysis, while Slevomat Coding Standard offers specialized, opinionated rules for maintaining high-quality codebases.

PHP_CodeSniffer is better suited for projects requiring compatibility with older PHP versions or those following standard PSR guidelines. Slevomat Coding Standard is ideal for teams working with modern PHP and seeking stricter code quality enforcement.

Pros of PHP-CS-Fixer

• More comprehensive set of fixers and rules
• Supports automatic code fixing, not just detection
• Highly configurable with a wide range of options

Cons of PHP-CS-Fixer

• Can be slower for large codebases due to its extensive ruleset
• May require more setup and configuration to achieve desired results
• Learning curve can be steeper for beginners

Code Comparison

PHP-CS-Fixer configuration:

<?php
$config = new PhpCsFixer\Config();
return $config->setRules([
    '@PSR2' => true,
    'array_syntax' => ['syntax' => 'short'],
    'no_unused_imports' => true,
]);

Slevomat Coding Standard configuration:

<ruleset name="MyStandard">
    <rule ref="vendor/slevomat/coding-standard/SlevomatCodingStandard/ruleset.xml">
        <exclude name="SlevomatCodingStandard.TypeHints.TypeHintDeclaration.MissingParameterTypeHint"/>
    </rule>
</ruleset>

Both tools aim to improve PHP code quality, but PHP-CS-Fixer offers more extensive fixing capabilities and a wider range of rules. Slevomat Coding Standard, while more focused, can be easier to set up and integrate with existing PHP_CodeSniffer configurations. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team preferences, and the level of customization needed.

Pros of PHPStan

• More comprehensive static analysis, detecting a wider range of potential issues
• Customizable rule levels for gradual adoption and integration
• Extensible through plugins and custom rules

Cons of PHPStan

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• May produce more false positives, requiring fine-tuning
• Slower analysis speed for large codebases

Code Comparison

PHPStan:

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

Slevomat Coding Standard:

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

PHPStan would detect the type mismatch in the function call, while Slevomat Coding Standard focuses more on coding style and best practices.

Summary

PHPStan is a powerful static analysis tool that offers deep code inspection and error detection. It excels in finding potential bugs and type-related issues. Slevomat Coding Standard, on the other hand, is primarily focused on enforcing coding standards and best practices.

While PHPStan provides more comprehensive analysis, it may require more setup and configuration. Slevomat Coding Standard is easier to integrate but offers less extensive error detection. Both tools can be valuable additions to a PHP project, often used in combination to improve code quality and maintainability.

Pros of Psalm

• More comprehensive static analysis tool, covering a wider range of PHP issues
• Supports type inference and advanced type checking
• Integrates with popular IDEs and CI tools

Cons of Psalm

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features
• May produce more false positives, requiring fine-tuning
• Potentially slower analysis for large codebases

Code Comparison

Psalm:

/** @psalm-suppress PossiblyNullReference */
$result = $maybeNull->someMethod();

Coding Standard:

// No direct equivalent, focuses on coding style rather than type analysis
$result = $maybeNull->someMethod();

Key Differences

• Psalm is a static analysis tool focusing on type checking and bug detection
• Coding Standard is primarily a coding style checker and formatter
• Psalm offers more advanced features for improving code quality and reliability
• Coding Standard is easier to set up and use for basic code style enforcement

Use Cases

• Use Psalm for comprehensive static analysis and type checking in large projects
• Use Coding Standard for enforcing consistent coding style across a team
• Consider using both tools in conjunction for a well-rounded code quality approach

Pros of phan

• More comprehensive static analysis, detecting a wider range of potential issues
• Supports type checking and inference, enhancing code reliability
• Integrates with popular IDEs and CI/CD pipelines for seamless workflow

Cons of phan

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive configuration options
• May produce more false positives, requiring fine-tuning for specific projects
• Slower analysis speed compared to simpler coding standards tools

Code Comparison

phan example:

/**
 * @param int $x
 * @return string
 */
function foo($x) {
    return $x; // phan will detect type mismatch
}

coding-standard example:

function foo($x)
{
    return $x; // coding-standard focuses on formatting
}

phan excels at detecting logical and type-related issues, while coding-standard primarily enforces coding style and formatting rules. phan offers more advanced analysis capabilities but may require more setup and configuration. coding-standard is simpler to use and faster to run but focuses mainly on code style consistency rather than deep static analysis.

Pros of PHP Insights

• Provides a comprehensive analysis of PHP code, including metrics, architecture, and style
• Offers a user-friendly CLI interface with colorful output and progress bars
• Integrates multiple tools and rulesets into a single package

Cons of PHP Insights

• May have a steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Can be slower to run compared to more focused tools like Slevomat Coding Standard
• Might require more configuration to tailor to specific project needs

Code Comparison

PHP Insights:

$insightsConfig = [
    'preset' => 'default',
    'ide' => 'phpstorm',
    'exclude' => [
        'path/to/exclude',
    ],
];

Slevomat Coding Standard:

$config = [
    'installed_paths' => 'vendor/slevomat/coding-standard',
    'sniffs' => [
        'SlevomatCodingStandard.TypeHints.DeclareStrictTypes',
    ],
];

Both tools aim to improve PHP code quality, but PHP Insights offers a more comprehensive analysis with a user-friendly interface, while Slevomat Coding Standard focuses specifically on coding standards and can be more lightweight. The choice between them depends on project requirements and team preferences.