Pros of Vue

• Core Vue framework with extensive documentation and community support
• Flexible and scalable for large applications
• Regularly updated with new features and improvements

Cons of Vue

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• More complex setup for advanced features
• Larger file size compared to minimal implementations

Code Comparison

Vue (core framework):

import Vue from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'

new Vue({
  render: h => h(App)
}).$mount('#app')

vue2.0-taopiaopiao (specific implementation):

import Vue from 'vue'
import VueRouter from 'vue-router'
import routes from './routes'

Vue.use(VueRouter)
const router = new VueRouter({routes})

Summary

Vue is a comprehensive framework suitable for various project sizes, offering extensive features and community support. vue2.0-taopiaopiao is a specific implementation of a movie ticket booking system using Vue 2.0, demonstrating a practical application of the framework.

While Vue provides more flexibility and scalability, it may be overkill for simpler projects. vue2.0-taopiaopiao offers a focused solution for a particular use case but may lack the broader applicability of the core Vue framework.

The code comparison shows that Vue's core setup is simpler, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao includes additional routing configuration, reflecting its more specific purpose.

Pros of element

• Comprehensive UI component library with extensive documentation
• Active development and large community support
• Designed for building complex enterprise-level applications

Cons of element

• Larger bundle size due to its extensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less flexibility for custom designs compared to building from scratch

Code comparison

element:

<el-button type="primary" @click="handleClick">Click me</el-button>
<el-input v-model="inputValue" placeholder="Enter text"></el-input>
<el-table :data="tableData">
  <el-table-column prop="name" label="Name"></el-table-column>
  <el-table-column prop="age" label="Age"></el-table-column>
</el-table>

vue2.0-taopiaopiao:

<div class="button" @click="handleClick">Click me</div>
<input v-model="inputValue" placeholder="Enter text">
<table>
  <tr v-for="item in tableData" :key="item.id">
    <td>{{ item.name }}</td>
    <td>{{ item.age }}</td>
  </tr>
</table>

The element code showcases pre-built components with built-in functionality, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao uses more basic HTML elements with custom styling and logic. element provides a more standardized and feature-rich approach, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao offers more flexibility for custom implementations.

Pros of iview

• Comprehensive UI component library with a wide range of ready-to-use components
• Well-documented and actively maintained, with regular updates and bug fixes
• Supports both Vue 2 and Vue 3, providing flexibility for different project requirements

Cons of iview

• Larger bundle size due to the extensive component library, which may impact initial load times
• Steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with the iview ecosystem
• Less customizable compared to building components from scratch

Code Comparison

iview:

<template>
  <Button type="primary" @click="handleClick">Click me</Button>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  methods: {
    handleClick() {
      this.$Message.info('Button clicked');
    }
  }
}
</script>

vue2.0-taopiaopiao:

<template>
  <div class="button" @click="handleClick">Click me</div>
</template>

<script>
export default {
  methods: {
    handleClick() {
      console.log('Button clicked');
    }
  }
}
</script>

The iview example showcases the use of pre-built components and integrated messaging system, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao demonstrates a more custom approach to building UI elements.

Pros of vue-element-admin

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a complete admin panel solution
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a large community
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier implementation

Cons of vue-element-admin

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive features
• Potentially overkill for smaller projects or simple admin interfaces
• Heavier bundle size, which may impact initial load times

Code Comparison

vue-element-admin:

import Vue from 'vue'
import Router from 'vue-router'
import Layout from '@/layout'

Vue.use(Router)

export const constantRoutes = [
  {
    path: '/login',
    component: () => import('@/views/login/index'),
    hidden: true
  }
]

vue2.0-taopiaopiao:

import Vue from 'vue'
import Router from 'vue-router'
import Movie from '../views/movie/movie.vue'
import Cinema from '../views/cinema/cinema.vue'

Vue.use(Router)

export default new Router({
  routes: [
    { path: '/movie', component: Movie },
    { path: '/cinema', component: Cinema }
  ]
})

The code comparison shows that vue-element-admin uses a more modular approach with lazy-loading components, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao has a simpler router configuration. This reflects the overall complexity difference between the two projects.

Pros of vue-manage-system

• More comprehensive and feature-rich admin template
• Regularly updated with newer Vue.js versions and dependencies
• Includes a variety of pre-built components and layouts

Cons of vue-manage-system

• Potentially more complex for beginners due to its extensive features
• May require more customization to fit specific project needs
• Larger codebase and potentially higher learning curve

Code Comparison

vue-manage-system:

<template>
    <div class="header">
        <div class="collapse-btn" @click="collapseChage">
            <i v-if="!collapse" class="el-icon-s-fold"></i>
            <i v-else class="el-icon-s-unfold"></i>
        </div>
        <div class="logo">后台管理系统</div>
        <div class="header-right">
            <div class="header-user-con">
                <!-- User-related components -->
            </div>
        </div>
    </div>
</template>

vue2.0-taopiaopiao:

<template>
  <div id="app">
    <v-header></v-header>
    <router-view></router-view>
    <v-footer></v-footer>
    <v-loading v-show="loading"></v-loading>
    <v-mask v-show="mask"></v-mask>
  </div>
</template>

The code comparison shows that vue-manage-system has a more detailed and feature-rich header component, while vue2.0-taopiaopiao has a simpler overall app structure. This reflects the differences in complexity and focus between the two projects.

Pros of vue2-elm

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, covering a wider range of functionalities
• Better documentation and code organization, making it easier for developers to understand and contribute
• Includes a backend implementation, providing a full-stack solution

Cons of vue2-elm

• Larger codebase, which may be overwhelming for beginners or smaller projects
• More complex setup and configuration required
• Potentially slower initial load times due to the increased number of components and features

Code Comparison

vue2-elm:

import Vue from 'vue'
import VueRouter from 'vue-router'
import routes from './router/router'
import store from './store/'
import {routerMode} from './config/env'
import './config/rem'
import FastClick from 'fastclick'

vue2.0-taopiaopiao:

import Vue from 'vue'
import VueRouter from 'vue-router'
import routes from './routes'
import store from './vuex/store'
import VueResource from 'vue-resource'

The code comparison shows that vue2-elm includes additional imports for configuration and performance optimization (FastClick), while vue2.0-taopiaopiao has a simpler setup with fewer dependencies.

Both projects use Vue.js 2.0 and implement routing and state management. However, vue2-elm appears to have a more extensive configuration and setup process, which aligns with its more comprehensive feature set.