Pros of MVP

• More comprehensive set of pre-styled elements, including forms and tables
• Includes dark mode support out of the box
• Offers more customization options through CSS variables

Cons of MVP

• Larger file size (7.7KB vs 4.5KB for new.css)
• More opinionated design, which may require more overrides for custom styling
• Slightly more complex structure, potentially making it harder to understand and modify

Code Comparison

MVP:

:root {
  --border-radius: 5px;
  --box-shadow: 2px 2px 10px;
  --color: #118bee;
  --color-accent: #118bee15;
  --color-bg: #fff;
  --color-bg-secondary: #e9e9e9;
  --color-secondary: #920de9;
  --color-secondary-accent: #920de90b;
  --color-shadow: #f4f4f4;
  --color-text: #000;
  --color-text-secondary: #999;
  --font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif;
  --hover-brightness: 1.2;
  --justify-important: center;
  --justify-normal: left;
  --line-height: 1.5;
  --width-card: 285px;
  --width-card-medium: 460px;
  --width-card-wide: 800px;
  --width-content: 1080px;
}

new.css:

:root {
  --nc-font-sans: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol";
  --nc-font-mono: Consolas, monaco, 'Ubuntu Mono', 'Liberation Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;

  /* Light theme */
  --nc-tx-1: #000000;
  --nc-tx-2: #1A1A1A;
  --nc-bg-1: #FFFFFF;
  --nc-bg-2: #F6F8FA;
  --nc-bg-3: #E5E7EB;
  --nc-lk-1: #0070F3;
  --nc-lk-2: #0366D6;
  --nc-lk-tx: #FFFFFF;
  --nc-ac-1: #79FFE1;
  --nc-ac-tx: #0C4047;
}

Pros of Water.css

• More comprehensive set of styles, covering a wider range of HTML elements
• Includes dark mode support out of the box
• Offers multiple themes (light, dark, and automatic)

Cons of Water.css

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More opinionated design choices, potentially requiring more customization
• Less focus on minimalism compared to New.css

Code Comparison

New.css:

body {
  max-width: 60ch;
  padding: 2ch;
  margin: auto;
}

Water.css:

body {
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Roboto', 'Oxygen', 'Ubuntu', 'Cantarell', 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;
}

Summary

Water.css offers a more feature-rich and comprehensive styling solution, including dark mode and multiple themes. However, this comes at the cost of a larger file size and more opinionated design choices. New.css, on the other hand, focuses on minimalism and simplicity, resulting in a smaller file size but with fewer built-in features. The code comparison shows that Water.css provides more detailed default styles, while New.css opts for a more streamlined approach.

Pros of dropin-minimal-css

• Offers multiple themes and styles, providing more flexibility
• Includes a theme switcher for easy customization
• Smaller file size for individual themes, potentially faster loading

Cons of dropin-minimal-css

• Less comprehensive default styling compared to new.css
• May require more manual adjustments for complex layouts
• Documentation is not as extensive as new.css

Code Comparison

new.css:

body {
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 1rem;
  font-family: system-ui, sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.5;
}

dropin-minimal-css (example from "sakura" theme):

body {
  max-width: 38em;
  margin: auto;
  padding: 13px;
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.5;
}

Both projects aim to provide minimal CSS frameworks for quick and easy styling of web pages. new.css focuses on a single, opinionated style with more comprehensive default styling, while dropin-minimal-css offers multiple themes with a more minimalist approach. The code comparison shows similarities in basic layout principles, but dropin-minimal-css tends to use more specific font stacks and slightly different default values for margins and padding.

Pros of Simple.css

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Includes utility classes for additional customization
• Actively maintained with regular updates

Cons of Simple.css

• Larger file size compared to New.css
• More opinionated design choices, potentially less flexible
• Requires more markup for certain elements

Code Comparison

Simple.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Roboto', 'Oxygen', 'Ubuntu', 'Cantarell', 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
  color: #363636;
  background: #ffffff;
}

New.css:

:root {
  --nc-font-sans: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol';
  --nc-font-mono: Consolas, monaco, 'Ubuntu Mono', 'Liberation Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;
  --nc-tx-1: #000000;
  --nc-bg-1: #FFFFFF;
  --nc-bg-2: #F6F8FA;
}

Both CSS frameworks aim to provide simple, classless styling for HTML elements. Simple.css offers more features and customization options, while New.css focuses on minimalism and smaller file size. The choice between the two depends on project requirements and personal preferences.

Pros of Sakura

• More customizable with variables for colors and fonts
• Includes additional elements like blockquotes and code blocks
• Smaller file size (8.2 KB vs 10.9 KB for New.css)

Cons of Sakura

• Less modern and minimalist design compared to New.css
• Fewer pre-styled elements and layout options
• Limited browser support (no IE11 compatibility)

Code Comparison

Sakura:

html {
  font-size: 62.5%;
  font-family: var(--font-family-base);
}

body {
  font-size: 1.8rem;
  line-height: 1.618;
  max-width: 38em;
  margin: auto;
  color: var(--color-text);
  background-color: var(--color-bg);
  padding: 13px;
}

New.css:

:root {
  --nc-font-sans: 'Inter', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol";
  --nc-font-mono: Consolas, monaco, 'Ubuntu Mono', 'Liberation Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;

  --nc-tx-1: #000000;
  --nc-tx-2: #1A1A1A;
  --nc-bg-1: #FFFFFF;
  --nc-bg-2: #F6F8FA;
  --nc-bg-3: #E5E7EB;
  --nc-lk-1: #0070F3;
  --nc-lk-2: #0366D6;
  --nc-lk-tx: #FFFFFF;
  --nc-ac-1: #79FFE1;
  --nc-ac-tx: #0C4047;
}

Both stylesheets aim to provide simple, classless CSS frameworks for quick and easy styling of HTML documents. Sakura offers more customization options through variables, while New.css focuses on a modern, minimalist design with a wider range of pre-styled elements.

Pros of Tacit

• More comprehensive styling, covering a wider range of HTML elements
• Includes responsive design features for better mobile compatibility
• Offers a more opinionated and polished look out of the box

Cons of Tacit

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Less customizable due to its more opinionated nature
• May require overriding styles for specific design needs

Code Comparison

Tacit:

body {
  font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.6;
  max-width: 50em;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 1em;
}

new.css:

body {
  font-family: system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Roboto', 'Oxygen', 'Ubuntu', 'Cantarell', 'Fira Sans', 'Droid Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 800px;
  margin: 20px auto;
  padding: 0 10px;
}

Both frameworks aim to provide simple, classless CSS styling for HTML documents. Tacit offers a more comprehensive set of styles with responsive design features, while new.css focuses on minimalism and ease of customization. The code comparison shows similar approaches to basic body styling, with slight differences in font stacks, line heights, and layout parameters.