Pros of Remirror

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and ecosystem with more extensions
• Better TypeScript support and type safety

Cons of Remirror

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Heavier bundle size compared to Plate
• Less flexibility in customizing the core editor behavior

Code Comparison

Remirror:

import { useRemirror } from '@remirror/react';

const { manager, state, onChange } = useRemirror({
  extensions: () => [new BoldExtension(), new ItalicExtension()],
  content: '<p>Hello World!</p>',
  selection: 'end',
});

Plate:

import { createPlateUI, createPlugins, Plate } from '@udecode/plate';

const plugins = createPlugins([
  createBoldPlugin(),
  createItalicPlugin(),
]);

<Plate plugins={plugins} initialValue={[{ children: [{ text: 'Hello World!' }] }]} />;

Both Remirror and Plate are powerful rich text editing libraries for React applications. Remirror offers a more comprehensive set of features and extensions, making it suitable for complex editing needs. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve and larger bundle size. Plate, on the other hand, provides a more lightweight and flexible approach, allowing for easier customization of core editor behavior. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity you're willing to manage.

Pros of Slate

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Highly customizable and flexible architecture

Cons of Slate

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more boilerplate code to get started
• Less opinionated, which can lead to inconsistent implementations

Code Comparison

Slate:

import { createEditor } from 'slate'
import { Slate, Editable, withReact } from 'slate-react'

const editor = withReact(createEditor())
const initialValue = [{ children: [{ text: 'Hello world!' }] }]

const MyEditor = () => (
  <Slate editor={editor} value={initialValue}>
    <Editable />
  </Slate>
)

Plate:

import { createPlateUI, Plate } from '@udecode/plate'

const initialValue = [{ children: [{ text: 'Hello world!' }] }]

const MyEditor = () => (
  <Plate initialValue={initialValue} plugins={createPlateUI()}>
    <PlateContent />
  </Plate>
)

Both Slate and Plate are powerful rich text editing frameworks for React. Slate offers more flexibility and customization options, while Plate provides a more opinionated and streamlined approach with pre-built components and plugins. Slate may be better suited for complex, highly customized editors, while Plate can help developers get up and running quickly with a polished editor experience.

Pros of Tiptap

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Built-in support for collaborative editing

Cons of Tiptap

• Steeper learning curve, especially for complex customizations
• Requires more setup and configuration for advanced features
• Limited built-in components compared to Plate

Code Comparison

Tiptap:

import { Editor } from '@tiptap/core'
import StarterKit from '@tiptap/starter-kit'

new Editor({
  element: document.querySelector('.editor'),
  extensions: [StarterKit],
})

Plate:

import { createPlateUI, createPlugins, Plate } from '@udecode/plate'

const plugins = createPlugins([...])
const components = createPlateUI()

<Plate plugins={plugins} components={components}>
  {children}
</Plate>

Both Tiptap and Plate are powerful rich text editing libraries for React applications. Tiptap offers a more established ecosystem with extensive documentation and collaborative editing support. However, it may require more setup and have a steeper learning curve. Plate, on the other hand, provides a more straightforward API and a wider range of built-in components, making it easier to get started quickly. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Lexical

• Developed and maintained by Facebook, ensuring robust support and regular updates
• Highly performant and optimized for large documents and complex editing scenarios
• Extensive documentation and examples available for developers

Cons of Lexical

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level nature and custom data model
• Less out-of-the-box features compared to Plate, requiring more custom implementation
• Smaller ecosystem of plugins and extensions

Code Comparison

Lexical:

import {$getRoot, $createParagraphNode, $createTextNode} from 'lexical';

editor.update(() => {
  const root = $getRoot();
  const paragraph = $createParagraphNode();
  const text = $createTextNode('Hello world');
  paragraph.append(text);
  root.append(paragraph);
});

Plate:

import { createPlateUI, createPlugins, Plate } from '@udecode/plate';

const plugins = createPlugins([...]);

const MyEditor = () => (
  <Plate plugins={plugins} initialValue={[{ type: 'p', children: [{ text: 'Hello world' }] }]}>
    {/* editor content */}
  </Plate>
);

This comparison highlights the different approaches: Lexical's imperative style versus Plate's declarative React-based implementation. Lexical offers more fine-grained control, while Plate provides a higher-level abstraction for quicker setup and easier integration with React applications.

Pros of ProseMirror

• Mature and battle-tested framework with a large community
• Highly customizable and extensible architecture
• Robust documentation and extensive ecosystem of plugins

Cons of ProseMirror

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level nature
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic functionality
• Less opinionated, which can lead to more decision-making for developers

Code Comparison

ProseMirror:

import {EditorState} from "prosemirror-state"
import {EditorView} from "prosemirror-view"
import {Schema} from "prosemirror-model"

const schema = new Schema({
  nodes: {
    doc: {content: "block+"},
    paragraph: {group: "block"},
    text: {inline: true}
  }
})

const state = EditorState.create({schema})
const view = new EditorView(document.body, {state})

Plate:

import React from 'react'
import { createPlateUI, Plate } from '@udecode/plate'

const initialValue = [
  {
    type: 'p',
    children: [{ text: 'Hello, World!' }],
  },
]

const MyEditor = () => (
  <Plate initialValue={initialValue} />
)

The code comparison shows that Plate offers a more React-centric and declarative approach, while ProseMirror provides a lower-level API for creating and managing the editor state.

Pros of Quill

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Wider range of built-in features and modules

Cons of Quill

• Heavier and more complex, which may impact performance
• Less flexible for custom configurations and extensions
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to rich text editing

Code Comparison

Quill:

var quill = new Quill('#editor', {
  modules: { toolbar: true },
  theme: 'snow'
});

Plate:

const editor = withReact(
  createEditor(),
  withHistory,
  withPlate()
);

Plate offers a more modular approach, allowing developers to compose plugins and customize the editor more easily. Quill provides a more opinionated structure with pre-configured modules.

While Quill has been the go-to choice for many projects due to its maturity and feature set, Plate is gaining traction for its flexibility and modern React-based architecture. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, desired customization level, and developer preferences.