NeteaseCloudMusicApi

Pros of musicbox

• Command-line interface for easy and quick access
• Lightweight and efficient, suitable for low-resource environments
• Supports offline mode for cached songs

Cons of musicbox

• Less comprehensive API coverage compared to NeteaseCloudMusicApi
• Not actively maintained, with the last update in 2019
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (JavaScript):

const { login_cellphone, user_playlist } = require('NeteaseCloudMusicApi')

login_cellphone({
  phone: '手机号',
  password: '密码'
}).then(result => {
  console.log(result)
  user_playlist({
    uid: result.body.account.id
  }).then(data => {
    console.log(data)
  })
})

musicbox (Python):

from NEMbox import api

client = api.NetEase()
client.login('username', 'password')
playlists = client.user_playlist('user_id')
print(playlists)

Both repositories provide APIs for interacting with NetEase Cloud Music, but NeteaseCloudMusicApi offers a more extensive and up-to-date set of features. musicbox, while more lightweight and suitable for command-line use, has not been actively maintained recently. NeteaseCloudMusicApi is written in JavaScript, making it ideal for web-based applications, while musicbox is implemented in Python, which may be preferable for some developers or use cases.

Pros of listen1_chrome_extension

• Cross-platform support: Works as a Chrome extension, making it accessible on various operating systems
• Multi-source integration: Aggregates music from multiple streaming platforms into a single interface
• User-friendly interface: Provides a more intuitive and visually appealing user experience

Cons of listen1_chrome_extension

• Limited to browser environment: Requires Chrome or compatible browsers to function
• Potential for instability: May be affected by changes in streaming platforms' APIs or website structures
• Less flexibility for developers: More challenging to integrate into custom applications or services

Code Comparison

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (Node.js):

const { login_cellphone } = require('NeteaseCloudMusicApi')

login_cellphone({
  phone: '手机号',
  password: '密码'
}).then(result => {
  console.log(result)
})

listen1_chrome_extension (JavaScript):

L1Player.play({
  id: 'xxx',
  platform: 'netease',
  title: 'Song Title',
  artist: 'Artist Name',
  album: 'Album Name',
  albumId: 'yyy',
  lyric_url: 'http://example.com/lyric.lrc'
})

The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches: NeteaseCloudMusicApi focuses on providing raw API access, while listen1_chrome_extension offers a higher-level interface for playback across multiple platforms.

Pros of YesPlayMusic

• User-friendly interface with a modern, aesthetically pleasing design
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux) as an Electron-based desktop application
• Integrated lyrics display and Last.fm scrobbling features

Cons of YesPlayMusic

• Limited to a music player application, while NeteaseCloudMusicApi provides a more versatile API
• May have higher resource usage due to being an Electron app compared to a lightweight API

Code Comparison

YesPlayMusic (Vue.js component):

<template>
  <div class="player">
    <Cover :url="cover" :playing="playing" />
    <div class="controls">
      <button @click="togglePlay">{{ playing ? 'Pause' : 'Play' }}</button>
    </div>
  </div>
</template>

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (Node.js API endpoint):

module.exports = async (query, request) => {
  const data = {
    ids: query.id,
    br: parseInt(query.br || 999000)
  }
  return request(
    'POST', `https://music.163.com/weapi/song/enhance/player/url`, data,
    {crypto: 'weapi', cookie: query.cookie, proxy: query.proxy}
  )
}

YesPlayMusic focuses on creating a user interface for music playback, while NeteaseCloudMusicApi provides raw API endpoints for accessing music data and functionality.

Pros of SaltPlayerSource

• Written in Kotlin, offering modern language features and better Android integration
• Focuses on a local music player experience, providing more control over playback
• Implements a clean architecture with separation of concerns

Cons of SaltPlayerSource

• Limited to local music playback, lacking cloud music streaming capabilities
• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to NeteaseCloudMusicApi
• Less comprehensive documentation and API coverage

Code Comparison

SaltPlayerSource (Kotlin):

class MusicPlayerService : Service(), MediaPlayer.OnPreparedListener {
    private lateinit var mediaPlayer: MediaPlayer

    override fun onBind(intent: Intent): IBinder? {
        return null
    }
}

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (JavaScript):

const createServer = port => {
  const app = express()
  const http = require('http')
  const server = http.createServer(app)
  server.listen(port, () => {
    console.log(`server running @ http://localhost:${port}`)
  })
}

SaltPlayerSource is a Kotlin-based local music player for Android, offering a clean architecture and modern language features. It provides more control over local playback but lacks cloud streaming capabilities. NeteaseCloudMusicApi, on the other hand, is a JavaScript-based API for cloud music streaming, with a larger community and more comprehensive documentation. The code comparison shows the different focus areas: SaltPlayerSource implements a music player service, while NeteaseCloudMusicApi sets up a server for API requests.

Pros of lx-music-desktop

• Full-featured desktop application with a user-friendly interface
• Supports multiple music sources and platforms
• Offers offline playback and playlist management

Cons of lx-music-desktop

• Limited to desktop platforms, not available as a web or mobile app
• May require more system resources compared to a lightweight API

Code Comparison

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (JavaScript):

const { login_cellphone } = require('NeteaseCloudMusicApi')

login_cellphone({
  phone: '手机号',
  password: '密码'
}).then(result => {
  console.log(result)
})

lx-music-desktop (TypeScript):

import { httpFetch } from '../../../utils/request'

export const getMusicUrl = (songmid: string, type: string): Promise<string> => {
  return httpFetch(`https://api.example.com/song/url?id=${songmid}&type=${type}`)
    .then(({ body }) => body.data.url)
}

The NeteaseCloudMusicApi example shows a simple login function, while the lx-music-desktop snippet demonstrates a method to fetch music URLs. lx-music-desktop uses TypeScript, which provides better type checking and code organization. NeteaseCloudMusicApi focuses on providing API endpoints, while lx-music-desktop implements full application logic for music playback and management.

Pros of music

• Supports multiple music platforms (QQ Music, Netease Cloud Music, Xiami Music, etc.)
• Provides a simple web interface for searching and playing music
• Lightweight and easy to deploy

Cons of music

• Less actively maintained compared to NeteaseCloudMusicApi
• Limited documentation and examples
• Fewer API endpoints and features

Code comparison

music:

$api = new \Metowolf\Meting('netease');
$data = $api->format(true)->search('Hello');

NeteaseCloudMusicApi:

const { search } = require('NeteaseCloudMusicApi')
const result = await search({
  keywords: 'Hello',
  type: 1
})

Summary

music is a multi-platform music API that offers a simple web interface and supports various Chinese music services. It's lightweight and easy to use but has limited documentation and fewer features compared to NeteaseCloudMusicApi.

NeteaseCloudMusicApi focuses solely on Netease Cloud Music, providing a more comprehensive set of API endpoints and better documentation. It's more actively maintained and has a larger community, but lacks support for other music platforms.

Choose music if you need multi-platform support and a simple web interface. Opt for NeteaseCloudMusicApi if you require a more robust and well-documented API specifically for Netease Cloud Music.