Pros of ProseMirror

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for deeper control over the editor's behavior
• Better suited for complex document structures and advanced editing features
• Larger ecosystem with a wide range of plugins and extensions

Cons of ProseMirror

• Steeper learning curve, requiring more time and effort to implement
• Less opinionated, which can lead to more decision-making and potential inconsistencies
• Requires more boilerplate code to get started

Code Comparison

ProseMirror:

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

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

Tiptap:

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

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

Pros of Quill

• Mature and stable project with a longer history
• Extensive documentation and large community support
• Simpler API and easier learning curve for beginners

Cons of Quill

• Less flexible and customizable compared to Tiptap
• Limited support for collaborative editing features
• Slower development pace and fewer recent updates

Code Comparison

Quill initialization:

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

Tiptap initialization:

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

Both Quill and Tiptap are popular rich text editors for web applications. Quill offers a more straightforward approach with its simple API and extensive documentation, making it easier for beginners to get started. However, Tiptap provides greater flexibility and customization options, allowing developers to create more tailored editing experiences.

Tiptap's modular architecture and use of ProseMirror as its foundation give it an edge in terms of extensibility and collaborative editing capabilities. On the other hand, Quill's maturity and established community provide a sense of stability and reliability for projects that don't require advanced customization.

Ultimately, the choice between Quill and Tiptap depends on the specific needs of your project, with Quill being suitable for simpler implementations and Tiptap excelling in more complex, customized scenarios.

Pros of Lexical

• More lightweight and performant, especially for large documents
• Offers a headless core, allowing for greater flexibility in UI implementation
• Backed by Facebook, potentially ensuring long-term support and development

Cons of Lexical

• Newer project with a smaller community and ecosystem compared to Tiptap
• Less out-of-the-box features and extensions, requiring more custom development
• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to content-editable concepts

Code Comparison

Tiptap:

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

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

Lexical:

import { createEditor } from 'lexical'
import { RichTextPlugin } from '@lexical/rich-text'

const editor = createEditor()
editor.registerPlugin(RichTextPlugin)

Both Tiptap and Lexical are powerful rich text editing frameworks, but they cater to different needs. Tiptap offers a more complete solution out-of-the-box with a wide range of extensions, making it easier for quick implementation. Lexical, on the other hand, provides a more flexible and performant core, allowing for greater customization but requiring more initial setup. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, performance needs, and development preferences.

Pros of Slate

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for complex document structures
• Better suited for building custom, domain-specific editors
• Provides a lower-level API, giving developers more control over the editing experience

Cons of Slate

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level nature
• Less out-of-the-box functionality compared to Tiptap
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic editing features

Code Comparison

Slate example:

const editor = withReact(createEditor())
const [value, setValue] = useState(initialValue)

return (
  <Slate editor={editor} value={value} onChange={value => setValue(value)}>
    <Editable />
  </Slate>
)

Tiptap example:

const editor = useEditor({
  extensions: [StarterKit],
  content: '<p>Hello World!</p>',
})

return <EditorContent editor={editor} />

Both Slate and Tiptap are powerful rich text editing frameworks for React applications. Slate offers more flexibility and control, making it suitable for complex, custom editors. However, it requires more setup and has a steeper learning curve. Tiptap, on the other hand, provides a more user-friendly API with out-of-the-box functionality, making it easier to implement basic rich text editing features quickly.

Pros of tui.editor

• More comprehensive out-of-the-box features, including Markdown support and various plugins
• Better documentation and examples for quick implementation
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of tui.editor

• Heavier bundle size due to more built-in features
• Less flexibility for customization compared to Tiptap's modular approach
• Steeper learning curve for developers who need specific functionality

Code Comparison

tui.editor:

import Editor from '@toast-ui/editor';

const editor = new Editor({
  el: document.querySelector('#editor'),
  initialEditType: 'markdown',
  previewStyle: 'vertical'
});

Tiptap:

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

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

Both editors offer straightforward initialization, but Tiptap's modular approach allows for more granular control over included features. tui.editor provides more options in the initial configuration, reflecting its comprehensive nature. Tiptap's simplicity makes it easier to get started with basic editing functionality, while tui.editor's initial setup demonstrates its rich feature set out of the box.

Pros of yjs

• Designed for real-time collaboration and synchronization
• Supports a wide range of data types beyond text (e.g., XML, JSON)
• Offers offline support and conflict resolution

Cons of yjs

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Less focused on rich text editing specifically
• Requires additional setup for integration with UI frameworks

Code comparison

yjs:

import * as Y from 'yjs'
import { WebsocketProvider } from 'y-websocket'

const ydoc = new Y.Doc()
const provider = new WebsocketProvider('ws://localhost:1234', 'my-room', ydoc)
const ytext = ydoc.getText('mytext')

ytext.observe(event => {
  console.log('Text changed:', ytext.toString())
})

tiptap:

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

new Editor({
  element: document.querySelector('.editor'),
  extensions: [StarterKit],
  content: '<p>Hello World!</p>',
  onUpdate: ({ editor }) => {
    console.log('Content updated:', editor.getHTML())
  }
})

While yjs focuses on data synchronization and collaboration, tiptap provides a more straightforward API for rich text editing. yjs offers greater flexibility for various data types, but tiptap is more specialized for text editing and easier to integrate into existing projects.