unpkg

Pros of jsDelivr

• Supports multiple CDN providers, offering better global coverage and redundancy
• Allows serving specific file versions and auto-minification
• Provides additional features like combining multiple files and setting custom headers

Cons of jsDelivr

• More complex configuration options may be overwhelming for simple use cases
• Slightly longer URLs for basic file serving compared to unpkg

Code Comparison

unpkg:

https://unpkg.com/react@17.0.2/umd/react.production.min.js

jsDelivr:

https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/react@17.0.2/umd/react.production.min.js

Both CDNs offer similar URL structures for serving npm packages. The main difference is in the base URL, with jsDelivr using cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ and unpkg using unpkg.com/.

jsDelivr provides additional URL parameters for advanced usage:

https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/combine/npm/react@17.0.2,npm/react-dom@17.0.2

This feature allows combining multiple files in a single request, which is not available in unpkg.

Both repositories aim to provide fast and reliable CDN services for npm packages, with jsDelivr offering more advanced features and global coverage, while unpkg focuses on simplicity and ease of use.

Pros of cdnjs

• Extensive library of pre-hosted files for popular frameworks and libraries
• Versioning support for multiple releases of each library
• Community-driven project with a large contributor base

Cons of cdnjs

• Limited to pre-approved libraries, not all packages available
• Slower update cycle for new versions compared to real-time npm registry
• Requires manual submission and review process for new libraries

Code comparison

cdnjs usage:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js"></script>

unpkg usage:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/jquery@3.6.0/dist/jquery.min.js"></script>

Key differences

• cdnjs hosts a curated selection of popular libraries, while unpkg serves any package from the npm registry
• unpkg generates URLs dynamically based on npm package versions, cdnjs uses a static file structure
• cdnjs requires manual updates and approvals, unpkg reflects npm registry changes in real-time
• unpkg offers more flexibility for accessing specific files within packages
• cdnjs may have better performance due to its dedicated infrastructure and limited scope

Both services provide valuable CDN options for developers, with cdnjs offering a more curated experience and unpkg providing broader access to the npm ecosystem.

Pros of esm.sh

• Specializes in serving ES modules, optimized for modern JavaScript development
• Offers TypeScript support and automatic type definitions
• Provides a CDN-like experience specifically tailored for ES modules

Cons of esm.sh

• More limited package selection compared to unpkg's vast npm ecosystem
• Less established and potentially less stable than the more mature unpkg

Code Comparison

esm.sh:

import React from 'https://esm.sh/react'
import { useState } from 'https://esm.sh/react'

unpkg:

import React from 'https://unpkg.com/react?module'
import { useState } from 'https://unpkg.com/react?module'

Key Differences

• esm.sh focuses on ES modules, while unpkg serves all npm packages
• esm.sh provides TypeScript support out of the box
• unpkg has a larger package selection due to its direct connection to npm
• esm.sh offers a more streamlined experience for modern JavaScript development
• unpkg is more versatile, serving both modules and traditional scripts

Both services aim to simplify package usage in browser environments, but esm.sh caters specifically to ES module needs, while unpkg provides broader access to the npm ecosystem. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and preferences for module handling.