Mithril vs Preact: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will compare the key differences between Mithril and Preact, two popular JavaScript libraries for building user interfaces. Both libraries are designed to be lightweight and efficient, but there are some important distinctions that developers should be aware of. Let's dive into the details.

1. Virtual DOM Implementation: Mithril and Preact utilize different approaches when it comes to handling the virtual DOM. Mithril uses a diffing algorithm that updates only the necessary parts of the DOM, resulting in efficient rendering and better performance. On the other hand, Preact uses a VNode system that aims to provide a similar API to React, making it easier for React users to switch to Preact.

2. Package Size: When it comes to the file size of the library, Preact has an advantage over Mithril. Preact's core library is remarkably small, with the minified version being around 4KB. This makes it an ideal choice for projects that prioritize size optimization. Mithril, although still lightweight, has a slightly larger file size compared to Preact.

3. API Similarity to React: If you are familiar with React, you might find Preact to be more straightforward to work with. Preact aims to provide a nearly identical API to React, including components, lifecycle methods, and hooks. This similarity allows React developers to easily migrate to Preact without significant changes to their codebase. However, Mithril has its own API, which may require a learning curve for React developers.

4. Community and Ecosystem: React has a massive community and a vibrant ecosystem, which makes finding resources, libraries, and solutions much easier. Preact, being built as a React alternative, can tap into this existing ecosystem and benefit from the wide range of available tools and plugins. Mithril, while having a dedicated community, may have a more limited set of resources and plugins compared to Preact.

5. Plugins and Extensions: Preact and Mithril offer different approaches when it comes to handling plugins and extensions. Preact has a built-in compatibility layer called "preact-compat" that allows it to work with existing React codebases and plugins. Mithril, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more lightweight core with fewer built-in features, relying on external plugins for additional functionality.

6. Project Popularity: In terms of popularity, React is undoubtedly at the top, followed by Preact and then Mithril. React has gained widespread adoption and has become the industry standard for building user interfaces. Preact, being designed as a lightweight alternative to React, has also gained popularity and has a growing user base. Mithril, while having its own dedicated community, may have a smaller user base compared to React and Preact.

In summary, Mithril and Preact are both lightweight JavaScript libraries for building user interfaces, but they differ in their virtual DOM implementation, package size, API similarity to React, community and ecosystem support, handling of plugins and extensions, and project popularity. It is important to consider these differences when choosing the right library for your project.