Pros of Snap.svg

• More comprehensive API with advanced features like animations and filters
• Better browser compatibility, including support for older versions of Internet Explorer
• Larger community and more extensive documentation

Cons of Snap.svg

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to svg.js
• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex API

Code Comparison

Snap.svg:

var s = Snap(800, 600);
var circle = s.circle(50, 50, 40);
circle.attr({
    fill: "#bada55",
    stroke: "#000",
    strokeWidth: 5
});

svg.js:

var draw = SVG().addTo('body').size(800, 600);
var circle = draw.circle(80).move(50, 50);
circle.fill('#bada55').stroke({ color: '#000', width: 5 });

Both libraries allow for easy creation and manipulation of SVG elements, but Snap.svg's syntax is slightly more verbose. svg.js offers a more concise and chainable API, which some developers may find more intuitive. However, Snap.svg's approach provides more explicit control over element attributes.

Pros of Fabric.js

• More comprehensive feature set, including interactive object manipulation and canvas rendering
• Better suited for complex, interactive applications with rich graphical interfaces
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Fabric.js

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API and features
• May be overkill for simpler SVG manipulation tasks

Code Comparison

SVG.js:

const draw = SVG().addTo('body').size(300, 300)
const rect = draw.rect(100, 100).fill('#f06')

Fabric.js:

const canvas = new fabric.Canvas('canvas')
const rect = new fabric.Rect({
  width: 100, height: 100, fill: '#f06'
})
canvas.add(rect)

Key Differences

• SVG.js focuses on SVG manipulation, while Fabric.js provides a more comprehensive canvas-based solution
• Fabric.js offers built-in interactivity and object manipulation, whereas SVG.js requires additional plugins or custom code for similar functionality
• SVG.js has a smaller footprint and is more lightweight, making it suitable for simpler SVG-specific tasks

Use Cases

• Choose SVG.js for projects primarily focused on SVG manipulation and rendering
• Opt for Fabric.js when building complex, interactive graphics applications with canvas-based rendering and extensive object manipulation requirements

Pros of Bonsai

• More comprehensive animation capabilities out-of-the-box
• Supports both SVG and Canvas rendering
• Includes a built-in scene graph for complex hierarchical structures

Cons of Bonsai

• Less active development and community support
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Limited documentation and examples compared to svg.js

Code Comparison

Bonsai:

new Bitmap('image.png', function() {
  this.addTo(stage).attr({x: 100, y: 100});
  this.animate('1s', {x: 200, y: 200, rotation: Math.PI});
});

svg.js:

SVG().addTo('body').size(300, 300)
  .image('image.png')
  .move(100, 100)
  .animate(1000).move(200, 200).rotate(180);

Both libraries offer ways to create and animate SVG elements, but Bonsai's approach is more object-oriented and includes built-in support for bitmaps. svg.js provides a more streamlined API for common SVG operations, making it easier to get started with basic SVG manipulation and animation. However, Bonsai's additional features like Canvas support and the scene graph make it more suitable for complex, interactive graphics applications.

Pros of Raphael

• Cross-browser compatibility, including support for older browsers like IE6+
• Extensive documentation and a large community for support
• Built-in animation capabilities

Cons of Raphael

• Larger file size compared to svg.js
• Less focus on modern web standards and newer SVG features
• Slower performance for complex animations and large numbers of elements

Code Comparison

Raphael:

var paper = Raphael(0, 0, 500, 500);
var circle = paper.circle(100, 100, 50);
circle.attr("fill", "#ff0000");

svg.js:

var draw = SVG().addTo('body').size(500, 500);
var circle = draw.circle(100).move(100, 100);
circle.fill('#ff0000');

Both libraries allow for easy creation and manipulation of SVG elements, but svg.js uses a more modern and chainable syntax. Raphael's approach is slightly more verbose but may be more familiar to developers used to working with older JavaScript libraries.

Pros of Vivus

• Specialized for SVG animation, particularly drawing/stroke animations
• Lightweight and focused on a specific use case
• Simple API for quick implementation of SVG animations

Cons of Vivus

• Limited functionality compared to more comprehensive SVG libraries
• Less active development and smaller community
• Fewer options for complex SVG manipulations

Code Comparison

Vivus (animating an SVG):

new Vivus('my-svg', {duration: 200, type: 'delayed', start: 'autostart'});

SVG.js (creating and animating an SVG):

let draw = SVG().addTo('#drawing').size(300, 300)
let rect = draw.rect(100, 100).fill('#f06')
rect.animate().move(150, 150)

Key Differences

• SVG.js is a more comprehensive library for creating, manipulating, and animating SVGs
• Vivus focuses specifically on SVG drawing animations
• SVG.js offers more flexibility and features for complex SVG work
• Vivus provides a simpler API for quick implementation of stroke animations
• SVG.js has a larger community and more active development

Both libraries have their strengths, with Vivus excelling in simple stroke animations and SVG.js offering a more robust toolkit for general SVG manipulation and creation.