Emotion vs Linaria: What are the differences?

Key Differences between Emotion and Linaria

1. CSS-in-JS syntax: Emotion and Linaria both offer CSS-in-JS solutions, but they differ in terms of their syntax. Emotion uses a React-specific approach where CSS is written in JavaScript using the css function. On the other hand, Linaria takes a more class-based approach, allowing you to write CSS within JavaScript components using the styled API. This difference in syntax affects how you write and style your components in each library.

2. Runtime vs Build-time evaluation: Emotion and Linaria differ in their evaluation of the CSS code. Emotion evaluates CSS at runtime, meaning that the CSS code is processed in the browser when the component is rendered. In contrast, Linaria performs build-time evaluation, which means that the CSS is processed during the build process, resulting in lighter and more optimized stylesheets. This difference in evaluation can impact the performance and loading times of your application.

3. CSS extraction and bundling: Emotion and Linaria handle CSS extraction and bundling differently. Emotion extracts and bundles CSS in a separate file, which can be loaded asynchronously or together with the JavaScript bundle. Linaria, on the other hand, extracts CSS statically at build-time and injects it into the JavaScript bundle, reducing the number of network requests. This difference in CSS handling affects the way styles are delivered to the client and can have implications on the website's performance.

4. Usage of third-party tooling: Emotion and Linaria have different approaches when it comes to utilizing third-party tooling. Emotion integrates seamlessly with existing CSS tooling, making it compatible with preprocessors like Sass, Less, and PostCSS plugins. Linaria, on the other hand, relies on its own CSS preprocessor and doesn't currently support external preprocessors. This difference in tooling compatibility may influence your decision depending on your preferred workflow and existing CSS tooling stack.

5. Support for static extraction and optimization: Emotion and Linaria differ in their support for static extraction and optimization of styles. Emotion doesn't have built-in support for static extraction, which means that the CSS code isn't optimized for removal of unused styles during the build process. In contrast, Linaria provides static extraction, enabling elimination of unused styles and reducing the resulting CSS size. This difference can have an impact on the overall performance and efficiency of the website.

6. Community and adoption: Emotion and Linaria differ in terms of their community and adoption. Emotion, being an older library with a larger community, has gained more widespread adoption and has a more extensive range of plugins, integrations, and community support available. Linaria, being a newer library, has a smaller community and may have fewer resources and integrations available. When choosing between the two, considering community support and library maturity can be important factors.

In summary, Emotion and Linaria provide different approaches to CSS-in-JS, differing in terms of syntax, evaluation, CSS handling, tooling compatibility, support for static extraction and optimization, and community adoption.