css.gg

Pros of Tabler Icons

• Larger icon set with over 3,100 icons compared to CSS.gg's 704
• SVG-based icons offer better scalability and customization options
• Includes both stroke and fill versions for many icons

Cons of Tabler Icons

• Requires more complex implementation (SVG or font) compared to CSS.gg's CSS-only approach
• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers new to SVG manipulation

Code Comparison

CSS.gg (CSS-only approach):

.gg-add {
  box-sizing: border-box;
  position: relative;
  display: block;
  width: 22px;
  height: 22px;
  border: 2px solid;
  transform: scale(var(--ggs,1));
  border-radius: 22px
}

Tabler Icons (SVG approach):

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" class="icon icon-tabler icon-tabler-plus" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke-width="2" stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round">
  <path stroke="none" d="M0 0h24v24H0z" fill="none"/>
  <line x1="12" y1="5" x2="12" y2="19" />
  <line x1="5" y1="12" x2="19" y2="12" />
</svg>

Both icon libraries offer unique advantages, with CSS.gg focusing on simplicity and lightweight implementation, while Tabler Icons provides a more extensive and flexible icon set.

Pros of Ionicons

• Larger icon set with over 1,300 icons compared to CSS.gg's 704 icons
• Supports multiple file formats (SVG, webfont, PNG) for greater flexibility
• Backed by the Ionic Framework team, ensuring regular updates and maintenance

Cons of Ionicons

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set, potentially impacting load times
• More complex integration process, especially when using with non-Ionic projects
• Steeper learning curve for customization and usage compared to CSS.gg's simpler approach

Code Comparison

CSS.gg implementation:

<i class="gg-arrow-right"></i>

Ionicons implementation:

<ion-icon name="arrow-forward-outline"></ion-icon>

Both repositories offer easy-to-use icon implementations, but CSS.gg's approach is slightly more straightforward, requiring only a single HTML element with a class. Ionicons uses a custom element, which may require additional setup in some projects.

CSS.gg focuses on providing lightweight, CSS-only icons, making it ideal for projects where minimalism and performance are priorities. Ionicons, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive icon set with multiple format options, making it suitable for larger projects or those requiring a wider variety of icons.

Pros of Feather

• Larger icon set with over 280 icons compared to CSS.gg's 704
• SVG-based, allowing for easy scaling and color customization
• Well-established project with a large community and regular updates

Cons of Feather

• Requires JavaScript for some features, unlike CSS.gg's pure CSS approach
• Slightly larger file size due to SVG format
• Less flexibility in terms of animation and styling compared to CSS.gg

Code Comparison

Feather:

<i data-feather="circle"></i>
<script>
  feather.replace()
</script>

CSS.gg:

<i class="gg-circle"></i>

Summary

Feather offers a comprehensive set of SVG icons with easy customization, while CSS.gg provides a pure CSS approach with more flexibility in styling and animation. Feather is better suited for projects requiring a wide variety of scalable icons, whereas CSS.gg excels in lightweight implementations with dynamic styling options. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and preferences for icon implementation.

Pros of Octicons

• Larger icon set with over 200 icons, providing more variety
• Official GitHub icon set, ensuring consistency with GitHub's design language
• SVG-based, allowing for easy scaling and customization

Cons of Octicons

• Requires more setup and dependencies for usage
• Less flexible styling options compared to CSS-based icons
• Larger file size due to the comprehensive icon set

Code Comparison

Octicons usage:

<svg class="octicon octicon-alert" viewBox="0 0 16 16" version="1.1" width="16" height="16" aria-hidden="true">
  <path fill-rule="evenodd" d="M8.22 1.754a.25.25 0 00-.44 0L1.698 13.132a.25.25 0 00.22.368h12.164a.25.25 0 00.22-.368L8.22 1.754zm-1.763-.707c.659-1.234 2.427-1.234 3.086 0l6.082 11.378A1.75 1.75 0 0114.082 15H1.918a1.75 1.75 0 01-1.543-2.575L6.457 1.047zM9 11a1 1 0 11-2 0 1 1 0 012 0zm-.25-5.25a.75.75 0 00-1.5 0v2.5a.75.75 0 001.5 0v-2.5z"></path>
</svg>

css.gg usage:

<i class="gg-alert"></i>

css.gg offers a simpler implementation, requiring only a single HTML element with a class. Octicons, while more verbose, provides more control over the icon's appearance and behavior.

Pros of Font-Awesome

• Larger icon set with over 7,000 icons
• Widely adopted and recognized in the web development community
• Offers both free and paid versions with additional features

Cons of Font-Awesome

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Requires JavaScript for some advanced features
• More complex implementation, especially for customization

Code Comparison

css.gg:

<i class="gg-arrow-right"></i>

Font-Awesome:

<i class="fas fa-arrow-right"></i>

Additional Notes

css.gg focuses on pure CSS icons, resulting in smaller file sizes and faster load times. It offers around 700 icons, which may be sufficient for many projects. The implementation is simpler, requiring only CSS.

Font-Awesome provides a more extensive icon set and additional features like icon stacking and animations. However, this comes at the cost of larger file sizes and potentially more complex implementation.

Both libraries are open-source and actively maintained, making them viable options for different project requirements. The choice between them often depends on the specific needs of the project, such as the number of icons required, performance considerations, and desired customization options.

Pros of Material Design Icons

• Extensive library with over 2,000 icons in various styles and themes
• Official Google design system, ensuring consistency with Android and other Google products
• Available in multiple formats (SVG, PNG, font) for versatile usage

Cons of Material Design Icons

• Larger file size due to the extensive collection, potentially impacting load times
• Less customizable compared to CSS-based icons
• May require additional setup for web projects, especially when using icon fonts

Code Comparison

Material Design Icons (using web font):

<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/icon?family=Material+Icons" rel="stylesheet">
<i class="material-icons">favorite</i>

css.gg (using CSS):

<link href="https://css.gg/css" rel="stylesheet">
<i class="gg-heart"></i>

Key Differences

• css.gg focuses on pure CSS implementation, resulting in smaller file sizes and easier customization
• Material Design Icons offers a wider variety of icons and styles
• css.gg provides a more straightforward integration for web projects
• Material Design Icons has better support for native mobile app development

Use Cases

• Choose Material Design Icons for projects requiring a large icon set or consistency with Google's design language
• Opt for css.gg when prioritizing performance, customization, and ease of integration in web applications