Pros of tdesktop

• Official Telegram desktop client with full feature support
• Native performance and integration with desktop operating systems
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of tdesktop

• Heavier resource usage due to native implementation
• Steeper learning curve for contributors due to C++ codebase

Code Comparison

telegram-tt (JavaScript):

const handleMessage = (message) => {
  if (message.type === 'text') {
    renderTextMessage(message);
  } else if (message.type === 'photo') {
    renderPhotoMessage(message);
  }
};

tdesktop (C++):

void handleMessage(const Message &message) {
    if (message.type() == MessageType::Text) {
        renderTextMessage(message);
    } else if (message.type() == MessageType::Photo) {
        renderPhotoMessage(message);
    }
}

Summary

telegram-tt is a web-based Telegram client written in JavaScript, offering cross-platform compatibility and easier contribution for web developers. tdesktop, on the other hand, is the official native desktop client with full feature support and better performance on desktop systems. While telegram-tt may be more accessible for web developers, tdesktop provides a more integrated desktop experience with potentially better performance for resource-intensive tasks.

Pros of webogram

• Longer development history and more established codebase
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions
• Simpler architecture, potentially easier for newcomers to understand

Cons of webogram

• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Older technology stack, which may not leverage modern web capabilities
• Potentially slower performance due to older architecture

Code Comparison

webogram:

function TelegramApiModule(api, serverConfig) {
  var options = {dcID: 2, createNetworker: true}
  var networkerFactory = new NetworkerFactory(api.invokeNetworker)
  var networker = networkerFactory.getNetworker(dcID, options)
  // ...
}

telegram-tt:

class ApiClient {
  private dcId: number;
  private networker: Networker;

  constructor(dcId: number) {
    this.dcId = dcId;
    this.networker = new Networker(dcId);
  }
  // ...
}

The code comparison shows that telegram-tt uses TypeScript and a more modern class-based approach, while webogram uses older JavaScript patterns. telegram-tt's code appears more structured and type-safe, which can lead to better maintainability and fewer runtime errors.

Pros of telegram-react

• Built with React, offering a more familiar ecosystem for many web developers
• Potentially easier to contribute to for developers with React experience
• May have better performance for complex UI updates due to React's virtual DOM

Cons of telegram-react

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates compared to telegram-tt
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with React
• Potentially larger bundle size due to React dependencies

Code Comparison

telegram-react:

class MessageStore extends EventEmitter {
    constructor() {
        super();
        this.reset();
        this.addTdLibListener();
    }
    // ...
}

telegram-tt:

class MessagesStore {
  private messagesById = new Map<number, ApiMessage>();
  private localMessages = new Map<string, ApiMessage>();
  private threadsById = new Map<number, Thread>();
  // ...
}

The code snippets show different approaches to message storage. telegram-react uses an event-based system with EventEmitter, while telegram-tt employs TypeScript with more explicit type definitions and data structures.

Both repositories aim to create web-based Telegram clients, but they differ in their tech stacks and implementation details. The choice between them may depend on the developer's familiarity with React or TypeScript, as well as the specific project requirements.

Pros of tweb

• More active development with frequent updates and commits
• Larger community with more contributors and stars on GitHub
• Supports a wider range of Telegram features and customization options

Cons of tweb

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex codebase
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional features
• May have more bugs or instability due to rapid development

Code Comparison

tweb (TypeScript):

export function getHeavyAnimationPromise() {
  return new Promise<void>((resolve) => {
    if(liteMode.isAvailable('animations')) {
      return resolve();
    }

    setTimeout(resolve, 500);
  });
}

telegram-tt (JavaScript):

export function pause(ms) {
  return new Promise((resolve) => {
    setTimeout(resolve, ms);
  });
}

The code snippets demonstrate different approaches to handling animations and timing. tweb uses a more sophisticated method considering lite mode settings, while telegram-tt employs a simpler pause function.

Both projects aim to provide web-based Telegram clients, but tweb offers more features and active development at the cost of increased complexity. telegram-tt may be easier to understand and modify for developers new to the project.

Pros of Telegram-iOS

• Native iOS development using Swift, providing better performance and integration with iOS features
• Official repository maintained by Telegram, ensuring up-to-date features and security updates
• Extensive documentation and well-structured codebase for easier contribution and understanding

Cons of Telegram-iOS

• Limited to iOS platform, reducing cross-platform compatibility
• Larger codebase and more complex setup compared to web-based alternatives
• Requires more resources for development and maintenance

Code Comparison

Telegram-iOS (Swift):

class TGModernConversationTitleView: UIView {
    private let titleNode: ASTextNode
    private let subtitleNode: ASTextNode
    
    override init(frame: CGRect) {
        super.init(frame: frame)
        // Implementation details
    }
}

telegram-tt (JavaScript):

class ChatTitleComponent extends React.Component {
  render() {
    const { title, subtitle } = this.props;
    return (
      <div className="chat-title">
        <h3>{title}</h3>
        <span>{subtitle}</span>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

The code comparison shows the difference in language and approach between the native iOS implementation and the web-based React component. Telegram-iOS uses Swift with a more complex structure, while telegram-tt utilizes JavaScript with a simpler React component.

Pros of td

• Written in C++, offering better performance and lower-level control
• More comprehensive API coverage of Telegram's features
• Supports multiple programming languages through bindings

Cons of td

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level nature
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to telegram-tt
• Less suitable for quick prototyping or simple applications

Code Comparison

td (C++):

auto send_message = td_api::make_object<td_api::sendMessage>();
send_message->chat_id_ = chat_id;
send_message->input_message_content_ = td_api::make_object<td_api::inputMessageText>();
send_message->input_message_content_->as_input_message_text()->text_ = td_api::make_object<td_api::formattedText>();
send_message->input_message_content_->as_input_message_text()->text_->text_ = "Hello, World!";
send_query(std::move(send_message), {});

telegram-tt (JavaScript):

await callApi('sendMessage', {
  chat_id: chatId,
  text: 'Hello, World!',
});

Summary

td is a powerful, low-level library offering extensive control and performance, but with a steeper learning curve. telegram-tt provides a more user-friendly, JavaScript-based approach, ideal for web applications and rapid development. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements, development expertise, and performance needs.