Pros of Markwon

• More comprehensive Markdown support, including tables, task lists, and LaTeX
• Extensible plugin system for customization and additional features
• Active development with frequent updates and community support

Cons of Markwon

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger library size, which may impact app size
• Potentially slower rendering for complex Markdown content

Code Comparison

Markwon:

val markwon = Markwon.create(context)
val markdown = "**Hello** _Markdown_!"
markwon.setMarkdown(textView, markdown)

RichText:

RichText.fromMarkdown(markdown)
    .into(textView);

Summary

Markwon offers more advanced Markdown features and customization options, making it suitable for complex rendering needs. However, it comes with a steeper learning curve and larger library size. RichText provides a simpler API and smaller footprint, which may be preferable for basic Markdown rendering tasks. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, balancing feature richness with simplicity and performance considerations.

Pros of richeditor-android

• Provides a WYSIWYG editor with real-time preview
• Supports a wide range of text formatting options and HTML tags
• Includes JavaScript interface for easy customization and extension

Cons of richeditor-android

• Relies on WebView, which may impact performance on some devices
• Limited support for complex layouts and advanced text styling
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to RichText

Code Comparison

RichText:

RichText.fromHtml(htmlString)
    .into(textView)

richeditor-android:

mEditor.setEditorHeight(200)
mEditor.setEditorFontSize(22)
mEditor.setEditorFontColor(Color.RED)
mEditor.setPlaceholder("Insert text here...")

RichText focuses on rendering rich text content in TextViews, while richeditor-android provides an editable rich text interface. RichText offers a simpler API for displaying formatted text, whereas richeditor-android provides more control over the editing experience but requires more setup. RichText is better suited for displaying rich text, while richeditor-android is ideal for creating and editing rich content within the app.

Pros of Knife

• Lightweight and focused on basic rich text editing features
• Simple API for common text styling operations
• Supports undo/redo functionality out of the box

Cons of Knife

• Limited formatting options compared to RichText
• Less active development and community support
• Lacks advanced features like custom spans and image handling

Code Comparison

Knife:

knife.bold(boolean valid);
knife.italic(boolean valid);
knife.underline(boolean valid);
knife.strikethrough(boolean valid);
knife.size(int size);

RichText:

RichText.fromHtml(htmlString)
    .clickable(clickableSpan)
    .into(textView);

Summary

Knife offers a straightforward approach to basic text styling, making it suitable for simple rich text editing tasks. However, RichText provides more comprehensive formatting options and better handles complex HTML content. RichText also benefits from more active development and a larger user base, potentially leading to better long-term support and feature additions.

Pros of html-textview

• Lightweight and focused on HTML rendering
• Supports a wider range of HTML tags and attributes
• Better handling of complex HTML structures

Cons of html-textview

• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Limited styling options compared to RichText
• Lacks some advanced features like image loading and clickable links

Code Comparison

html-textview:

HtmlTextView htmlTextView = findViewById(R.id.html_text);
htmlTextView.setHtml("<p>Hello, <b>World!</b></p>");

RichText:

RichText.fromHtml("<p>Hello, <b>World!</b></p>")
    .into(textView);

Both libraries aim to render HTML content in Android TextViews, but they differ in implementation and feature sets. html-textview focuses on accurate HTML rendering with support for more tags, while RichText offers a more comprehensive set of features for rich text display, including image loading and link handling. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the complexity of the HTML content you need to display.

Pros of SuperTextView

• More comprehensive text styling options, including gradients and shadows
• Built-in support for custom shapes and borders
• Easier integration of icons and drawables within the text view

Cons of SuperTextView

• Larger library size due to additional features
• Steeper learning curve for utilizing all available options
• May be overkill for simple rich text formatting needs

Code Comparison

SuperTextView:

<com.coorchice.library.SuperTextView
    android:layout_width="wrap_content"
    android:layout_height="wrap_content"
    app:stv_text="Hello, SuperTextView!"
    app:stv_solid="#4D4D4D"
    app:stv_corner="5dp"
    app:stv_strokeColor="#FF4081"
    app:stv_strokeWidth="1dp" />

RichText:

RichText.fromHtml("<font color='red'>Hello, RichText!</font>")
    .into(textView);

Summary

SuperTextView offers more advanced styling options and built-in features for complex text views, while RichText focuses on simpler rich text formatting. SuperTextView may be preferred for projects requiring extensive customization, whereas RichText is more suitable for basic HTML-like text styling needs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity you're willing to manage.