Pros of chrome-extensions-samples

• Comprehensive collection of official examples covering various Chrome extension APIs
• Regularly updated with the latest Chrome extension features and best practices
• Includes both simple and complex examples, catering to different skill levels

Cons of chrome-extensions-samples

• Lacks a structured project generator or boilerplate setup
• May require more manual setup and configuration for new projects
• Does not provide an opinionated project structure or build process

Code Comparison

chrome-extensions-samples (manifest.json):

{
  "name": "Sample Extension",
  "version": "1.0",
  "manifest_version": 3,
  "background": {
    "service_worker": "background.js"
  }
}

generator-chrome-extension (generated manifest.json):

{
  "name": "__MSG_appName__",
  "version": "0.0.1",
  "manifest_version": 2,
  "background": {
    "scripts": ["scripts/background.js"]
  }
}

Summary

chrome-extensions-samples offers a wide range of official examples and up-to-date practices, making it an excellent resource for learning and reference. However, it lacks the project generation and opinionated structure provided by generator-chrome-extension. The code comparison shows differences in manifest versions and background script implementation, reflecting the evolving Chrome extension standards.

Pros of webextension-polyfill

• Provides a unified API for cross-browser extension development
• Simplifies the process of making extensions compatible with multiple browsers
• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of webextension-polyfill

• Limited to API compatibility and doesn't provide a full development environment
• May introduce a small performance overhead due to the abstraction layer
• Requires additional setup and integration into existing projects

Code Comparison

webextension-polyfill:

browser.runtime.sendMessage({ greeting: "hello" }).then((response) => {
  console.log("Received response: ", response);
});

generator-chrome-extension:

chrome.runtime.sendMessage({ greeting: "hello" }, (response) => {
  console.log("Received response: ", response);
});

Key Differences

generator-chrome-extension is a Yeoman generator that scaffolds a complete Chrome extension project structure, while webextension-polyfill is a compatibility library that allows developers to use a single, Promise-based API for cross-browser extension development.

generator-chrome-extension focuses on Chrome-specific development, providing boilerplate code and project setup. In contrast, webextension-polyfill aims to make extension code more portable across different browsers by providing a unified API that closely follows the WebExtensions standard.

While generator-chrome-extension offers a quick start for Chrome extension development, webextension-polyfill provides more flexibility for developers who want to create cross-browser compatible extensions with a consistent API.

Pros of web-extension-starter

• Supports multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Edge) out of the box
• Uses modern technologies like TypeScript, React, and Webpack
• Includes a pre-configured ESLint and Prettier setup for code quality

Cons of web-extension-starter

• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners due to its use of advanced technologies
• Less customization options during initial setup compared to generator-chrome-extension
• Smaller community and potentially less frequent updates

Code Comparison

web-extension-starter:

import React from 'react';
import ReactDOM from 'react-dom';
import Popup from './Popup';

ReactDOM.render(<Popup />, document.getElementById('popup-root'));

generator-chrome-extension:

document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function() {
  var checkPageButton = document.getElementById('checkPage');
  checkPageButton.addEventListener('click', function() {
    chrome.tabs.getSelected(null, function(tab) {
      alert("Hello from your Chrome extension!");
    });
  }, false);
}, false);

The code comparison shows that web-extension-starter uses React for its popup, while generator-chrome-extension uses vanilla JavaScript. This reflects the more modern approach of web-extension-starter, which may be beneficial for developers familiar with React but could be overwhelming for beginners.

Pros of Refined GitHub

• Actively maintained with frequent updates and new features
• Extensive set of enhancements for GitHub's web interface
• Large user base and community support

Cons of Refined GitHub

• Limited to GitHub-specific functionality
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to a generator

Code Comparison

Refined GitHub (content script):

import features from '../features';

async function init() {
  await features.initialize();
  features.add(import('./features/useful-not-found-page'));
  features.add(import('./features/trending-menu-item'));
  // ... more feature imports
}

init();

Generator Chrome Extension (Yeoman generator):

const Generator = require('yeoman-generator');

module.exports = class extends Generator {
  prompting() {
    return this.prompt([
      {
        type: 'input',
        name: 'name',
        message: 'What is the name of your extension?'
      }
    ]).then(answers => {
      this.answers = answers;
    });
  }
  // ... more generator methods
};

The code snippets highlight the different purposes of these projects. Refined GitHub focuses on enhancing GitHub's functionality through feature modules, while Generator Chrome Extension provides a scaffolding tool for creating new Chrome extensions.