stage.js

Pros of PixiJS

• Larger community and ecosystem, with more resources and third-party plugins
• Better performance for complex graphics and animations, especially for games
• More comprehensive documentation and examples

Cons of PixiJS

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for simpler projects
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

Stage.js:

Stage(function(stage) {
  var box = Stage.image('box').pin('align', 0.5);
  stage.append(box);
});

PixiJS:

const app = new PIXI.Application();
document.body.appendChild(app.view);
const box = PIXI.Sprite.from('box.png');
box.anchor.set(0.5);
app.stage.addChild(box);

Summary

PixiJS is a more powerful and feature-rich library, ideal for complex graphics and game development. It offers better performance and a larger ecosystem but comes with a steeper learning curve and larger file size. Stage.js, on the other hand, is simpler and more lightweight, making it easier to learn and use for basic projects. The code comparison shows that Stage.js has a more concise syntax for basic operations, while PixiJS provides more granular control over the rendering process.

Pros of melonJS

• More comprehensive game engine with built-in physics, collision detection, and entity management
• Larger community and more extensive documentation
• Better suited for complex 2D games with multiple layers and advanced features

Cons of melonJS

• Steeper learning curve due to its more extensive feature set
• Potentially heavier and slower for simple projects compared to Stage.js
• Less flexibility for custom rendering pipelines or non-game applications

Code Comparison

melonJS:

me.game.world.addChild(new me.Sprite(0, 0, {
    image: "background"
}));
me.game.world.addChild(new me.Entity(50, 50, {
    width: 32,
    height: 32
}));

Stage.js:

var background = Stage.image('background').pin('align', 0.5);
stage.append(background);
var player = Stage.image('player').pin({
    align: 0.5,
    offsetX: 50,
    offsetY: 50
});
stage.append(player);

Both examples demonstrate adding a background and a game entity, but melonJS uses a more structured approach with its entity system, while Stage.js focuses on simpler, more direct manipulation of display objects.

Pros of Phaser

• More comprehensive and feature-rich game development framework
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and tutorials
• Built-in physics engines (Arcade Physics, Matter.js) for advanced game mechanics

Cons of Phaser

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for web games
• More complex setup and configuration for simple projects

Code Comparison

Stage.js:

Stage(function(stage) {
  var box = Stage.image('box').pin('align', 0.5);
  stage.append(box);
});

Phaser:

const config = { type: Phaser.AUTO, width: 800, height: 600, scene: { create: create } };
const game = new Phaser.Game(config);

function create() {
  this.add.image(400, 300, 'box');
}

Summary

Phaser is a more robust game development framework with a larger feature set and community support, making it suitable for complex projects. Stage.js, on the other hand, is lightweight and easier to set up for simple 2D games and interactive applications. The choice between the two depends on the project's complexity and the developer's familiarity with game development concepts.

Pros of cocos2d-html5

• More comprehensive game development framework with a wider range of features
• Larger community and ecosystem, providing better support and resources
• Cross-platform compatibility, allowing development for multiple platforms

Cons of cocos2d-html5

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive feature set
• Heavier framework, potentially impacting performance for simpler projects
• Less flexibility for custom implementations compared to lighter alternatives

Code Comparison

stage.js:

Stage(function(stage) {
  var box = Stage.image('box').pin('align', 0.5).appendTo(stage);
  box.on('click', function() {
    this.tween().rotate(Math.PI * 2).ease('bounceOut').pin('scale', 1.2);
  });
});

cocos2d-html5:

var HelloWorldLayer = cc.Layer.extend({
    sprite: null,
    ctor: function() {
        this._super();
        var size = cc.winSize;
        this.sprite = new cc.Sprite(res.HelloWorld_png);
        this.sprite.attr({x: size.width / 2, y: size.height / 2});
        this.addChild(this.sprite, 0);
        return true;
    }
});

Pros of Crafty

• More mature and established project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Comprehensive entity-component system for game development
• Built-in scene management and state handling

Cons of Crafty

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Less flexible for non-game applications
• Heavier footprint, which may impact performance for simpler projects

Code Comparison

Stage.js:

Stage(function(stage) {
  var box = Stage.image('box').pin('align', 0.5).appendTo(stage);
  box.on('click', function() {
    this.tween().rotate(Math.PI * 2).duration(1000);
  });
});

Crafty:

Crafty.init(400, 400);
Crafty.e('2D, DOM, Color, Draggable')
  .attr({x: 100, y: 100, w: 50, h: 50})
  .color('red')
  .bind('Click', function() {
    this.rotate(45);
  });

Stage.js focuses on simplicity and ease of use for creating interactive content, while Crafty provides a more comprehensive framework for game development. Stage.js has a lighter footprint and is more suitable for simple animations and interactive elements, whereas Crafty offers more built-in game-specific features at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of planck.js

• Focused on 2D physics simulation, providing a more specialized and potentially optimized solution for physics-based applications
• Implements Box2D physics engine in JavaScript, offering a familiar API for developers experienced with Box2D
• Lightweight and designed for both browser and Node.js environments

Cons of planck.js

• Limited to physics simulation, lacking built-in rendering capabilities found in Stage.js
• May require additional libraries or frameworks for visual representation of physics objects
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with physics engines or Box2D concepts

Code Comparison

Stage.js (basic setup):

var stage = Stage.create();
var box = Stage.image('box').appendTo(stage);
box.pin('align', 0.5);
stage.on('click', function(point) {
  box.tween().translate(point.x, point.y);
});

planck.js (basic setup):

var world = planck.World();
var body = world.createBody();
var box = body.createFixture(planck.Box(1, 1));
world.step(1/60);
var position = body.getPosition();

Both libraries are maintained by the same developer (piqnt) but serve different purposes. Stage.js is a general-purpose rendering engine for interactive web content, while planck.js focuses on physics simulation. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.