Pros of load-awesome

• Offers a wider variety of loading animations (42 compared to csspin's 20)
• Provides more customization options for each loader
• Includes both CSS and SASS versions for flexibility

Cons of load-awesome

• Larger file size due to more animations and options
• May require more setup time to implement specific loaders
• Less frequently updated (last update in 2016 vs csspin's 2022)

Code Comparison

load-awesome:

<div class="la-ball-spin la-dark la-2x">
    <div></div>
    <div></div>
    <div></div>
    <div></div>
    <div></div>
</div>

csspin:

<div class="cp-spinner cp-round"></div>

Summary

load-awesome offers more variety and customization options for loading animations, making it suitable for projects requiring diverse loader styles. However, it comes with a larger file size and may require more setup time. csspin, while offering fewer options, provides a simpler implementation and has been more recently updated. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project, balancing between variety and simplicity.

Pros of SpinKit

• More diverse and visually appealing spinner designs
• Better browser compatibility, including support for older versions
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of SpinKit

• Larger file size due to more complex animations
• Requires additional CSS classes for customization

Code Comparison

SpinKit:

.spinner {
  width: 40px;
  height: 40px;
  background-color: #333;
  margin: 100px auto;
  -webkit-animation: sk-rotateplane 1.2s infinite ease-in-out;
  animation: sk-rotateplane 1.2s infinite ease-in-out;
}

csspin:

.cp-spinner {
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
}

Summary

SpinKit offers a wider variety of spinner designs and better browser compatibility, making it suitable for projects requiring diverse loading animations. However, it comes with a larger file size and may require additional customization.

csspin, on the other hand, provides a simpler approach with a smaller file size, but offers fewer spinner options and may have limited compatibility with older browsers.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired visual variety, and performance considerations.

Pros of css-loaders

• More variety of loader styles (12 different options)
• Simpler implementation with single HTML element
• Smaller file size for individual loaders

Cons of css-loaders

• Less customization options for colors and sizes
• No built-in animation delay feature
• Lacks comprehensive documentation

Code Comparison

css-loaders:

<div class="loader">Loading...</div>

.loader {
  border: 16px solid #f3f3f3;
  border-top: 16px solid #3498db;
  border-radius: 50%;
  width: 120px;
  height: 120px;
  animation: spin 2s linear infinite;
}

csspin:

<div class="cp-spinner cp-round"></div>

.cp-spinner {
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
}
.cp-round:before {
  border: 6px solid #bababa;
  border-top-color: #02aeef;
  border-radius: 50%;
  content: " ";
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: absolute;
  top: 0;
  left: 0;
  animation: cp-round-animate 1s ease-in-out infinite;
}

Both repositories offer CSS-based loading animations, but css-loaders provides more variety with simpler implementation, while csspin offers more customization options and better documentation.

Pros of Whirl

• More extensive collection of loading animations (over 100 vs. 30+ in CSSpin)
• Includes both CSS and SCSS versions for flexibility
• Offers a live demo site for easy preview and selection

Cons of Whirl

• Larger file size due to the extensive collection
• May require more time to find the desired animation among the many options
• Some animations might be more complex, potentially impacting performance

Code Comparison

Whirl example:

.whirl:after {
  content: "\0020";
  display: block;
  width: 40px;
  height: 40px;
  margin: 0 auto;
  border-radius: 50%;
  border: 6px solid #fff;
  border-color: #fff transparent #fff transparent;
  animation: whirl 1.5s linear infinite;
}

CSSpin example:

.cp-spinner {
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
}
.cp-round:before {
  border: 6px solid #bababa;
  border-top-color: #0099e5;
  border-radius: 50%;
  content: " ";
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: absolute;
  top: 0;
  left: 0;
  animation: cp-round-animate 1s linear infinite;
}

Both libraries offer CSS-based loading animations, but Whirl provides a larger variety and more customization options, while CSSpin focuses on a smaller set of commonly used spinners.

Pros of loaders.css

• More diverse collection of loader animations (42 types)
• Includes both CSS and Sass versions for flexibility
• Offers single-element CSS animations for simpler implementation

Cons of loaders.css

• Larger file size due to more animations
• Less focused on pure CSS spinners compared to csspin
• May require more customization for specific use cases

Code Comparison

csspin:

.cp-spinner {
  width: 48px;
  height: 48px;
  display: inline-block;
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
}

loaders.css:

.loader {
  color: #ffffff;
  font-size: 90px;
  text-indent: -9999em;
  overflow: hidden;
  width: 1em;
  height: 1em;
}

Key Differences

• csspin focuses specifically on CSS spinners, while loaders.css offers a broader range of loading animations
• loaders.css provides both CSS and Sass versions, giving developers more options for integration
• csspin's animations are generally simpler and more lightweight, while loaders.css offers more complex and diverse animations
• loaders.css has a larger community and more frequent updates, potentially leading to better long-term support

Both libraries serve similar purposes but cater to different needs. csspin is ideal for projects requiring simple, lightweight spinners, while loaders.css is better suited for those seeking a wide variety of loading animations with more customization options.

Pros of SpinThatShit

• Offers more customization options through Sass mixins
• Provides a wider variety of spinner styles and animations
• Includes a build system for easier development and customization

Cons of SpinThatShit

• Requires Sass compilation, which may add complexity to some projects
• Has fewer pre-built CSS classes for quick implementation
• Documentation is less comprehensive compared to csspin

Code Comparison

SpinThatShit (Sass mixin):

@include spinner(
  $size: 40px,
  $border-size: 4px,
  $border-color: #000,
  $spin-color: #fff
);

csspin (CSS class):

<div class="cp-spinner cp-round"></div>

Summary

SpinThatShit offers more flexibility and customization options through Sass mixins, making it ideal for projects that already use Sass. It provides a wider range of spinner styles and animations, allowing for more creative implementations.

csspin, on the other hand, offers a simpler approach with pre-built CSS classes, making it easier to implement quickly without the need for compilation. It has more comprehensive documentation, which can be beneficial for beginners or those looking for a quick solution.

The choice between the two depends on project requirements, existing tech stack, and the level of customization needed for the loading spinners.