Pros of Emotion

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger ecosystem and community support
• Offers a broader range of styling options, including object styles and string styles
• Provides better support for server-side rendering out of the box

Cons of Emotion

• Slightly larger bundle size compared to Stitches
• Runtime performance can be slower, especially with heavy use of dynamic styles
• Less type-safe compared to Stitches' static extraction

Code Comparison

Emotion:

import { css } from '@emotion/react'

const style = css`
  color: hotpink;
`

const SomeComponent = ({ children }) => (
  <div css={style}>{children}</div>
)

Stitches:

import { styled } from '@stitches/react'

const StyledDiv = styled('div', {
  color: 'hotpink',
})

const SomeComponent = ({ children }) => (
  <StyledDiv>{children}</StyledDiv>
)

Both libraries offer similar functionality, but Stitches provides a more type-safe approach with its static extraction, while Emotion offers more flexibility in styling options. Stitches focuses on performance and smaller bundle sizes, whereas Emotion has a larger ecosystem and better out-of-the-box server-side rendering support.

Pros of styled-components

• More mature ecosystem with extensive community support and resources
• Dynamic theming capabilities with ThemeProvider
• Better support for server-side rendering out of the box

Cons of styled-components

• Larger bundle size due to runtime CSS generation
• Slower performance compared to Stitches, especially for complex applications
• Requires additional setup for static CSS extraction

Code Comparison

styled-components:

const Button = styled.button`
  background-color: ${props => props.primary ? 'blue' : 'white'};
  color: ${props => props.primary ? 'white' : 'blue'};
  padding: 10px 20px;
`;

Stitches:

const Button = styled('button', {
  variants: {
    primary: {
      true: {
        backgroundColor: 'blue',
        color: 'white',
      },
      false: {
        backgroundColor: 'white',
        color: 'blue',
      },
    },
  },
  padding: '10px 20px',
});

Both libraries offer component-based styling solutions, but Stitches focuses on performance and type safety. styled-components provides a more familiar CSS-in-JS syntax and better dynamic theming, while Stitches offers improved performance and a smaller bundle size. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team preferences, and performance considerations.

Pros of CSS Modules

• Simpler learning curve, as it builds on existing CSS knowledge
• Works with any CSS preprocessor (SASS, LESS, etc.)
• Easier integration with existing projects and codebases

Cons of CSS Modules

• Less powerful runtime capabilities compared to Stitches
• Requires additional tooling and build process setup
• Limited theming and variant support out of the box

Code Comparison

CSS Modules:

.button {
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
}

import styles from './Button.module.css';

const Button = () => <button className={styles.button}>Click me</button>;

Stitches:

import { styled } from '@stitches/react';

const Button = styled('button', {
  backgroundColor: 'blue',
  color: 'white',
});

const MyComponent = () => <Button>Click me</Button>;

CSS Modules offers a familiar CSS syntax with scoped class names, while Stitches provides a more JavaScript-centric approach with enhanced runtime capabilities and built-in theming support. CSS Modules is easier to adopt in existing projects, whereas Stitches offers more powerful features for building design systems and component libraries.

Pros of vanilla-extract

• Zero-runtime CSS-in-JS, resulting in better performance
• Type-safe styles with TypeScript integration
• Supports static extraction of CSS, enabling server-side rendering

Cons of vanilla-extract

• Requires a build step, which may increase complexity
• Less dynamic than runtime CSS-in-JS solutions
• Limited runtime theming capabilities compared to Stitches

Code Comparison

vanilla-extract:

import { style } from '@vanilla-extract/css';

export const button = style({
  backgroundColor: 'blue',
  color: 'white',
  padding: '10px 20px',
});

Stitches:

import { styled } from '@stitches/react';

const Button = styled('button', {
  backgroundColor: 'blue',
  color: 'white',
  padding: '10px 20px',
});

Both vanilla-extract and Stitches offer CSS-in-JS solutions, but with different approaches. vanilla-extract focuses on zero-runtime, type-safe CSS generation, while Stitches provides a more dynamic runtime solution with powerful theming capabilities. The choice between them depends on project requirements, performance needs, and developer preferences.

Pros of Linaria

• Zero runtime CSS-in-JS solution, resulting in better performance
• Supports static extraction of CSS, enabling server-side rendering without additional setup
• Works with any framework or vanilla JavaScript, offering greater flexibility

Cons of Linaria

• Requires additional build step and configuration
• Limited dynamic styling capabilities compared to runtime CSS-in-JS solutions
• Steeper learning curve for developers used to traditional CSS or other CSS-in-JS libraries

Code Comparison

Linaria:

import { css } from '@linaria/core';

const button = css`
  background-color: blue;
  color: white;
  padding: 10px 20px;
`;

Stitches:

import { styled } from '@stitches/react';

const Button = styled('button', {
  backgroundColor: 'blue',
  color: 'white',
  padding: '10px 20px',
});

Both libraries offer a way to create styled components, but Linaria uses template literals while Stitches uses an object-based syntax. Linaria's approach results in static CSS extraction, while Stitches generates styles at runtime. This difference impacts performance and flexibility in dynamic styling scenarios.