Pros of Marlin

• Wider compatibility with various 3D printer hardware and boards
• Larger community support and more frequent updates
• Simpler configuration process for beginners

Cons of Marlin

• Less advanced features compared to RepRapFirmware
• Limited web interface capabilities
• May require more manual tuning for optimal performance

Code Comparison

Marlin (Configuration.h):

#define BAUDRATE 250000
#define MOTHERBOARD BOARD_RAMPS_14_EFB
#define X_DRIVER_TYPE  A4988
#define Y_DRIVER_TYPE  A4988
#define Z_DRIVER_TYPE  A4988

RepRapFirmware (config.g):

M552 S1 P"192.168.1.100"
M553 P255.255.255.0
M554 P192.168.1.1
M555 P2
M575 P1 B57600 S1

The code snippets show configuration differences:

• Marlin uses a C++ header file for configuration
• RepRapFirmware uses G-code commands in a config file
• RepRapFirmware offers more advanced network configuration options

Pros of Prusa-Firmware

• Optimized specifically for Prusa printers, ensuring better compatibility and performance
• More user-friendly interface and setup process for beginners
• Regular updates and active community support

Cons of Prusa-Firmware

• Limited compatibility with non-Prusa hardware
• Less flexible configuration options compared to RepRapFirmware
• Smaller feature set for advanced users and custom setups

Code Comparison

RepRapFirmware (C++):

void Platform::MessageF(MessageType type, const char *fmt, ...) const
{
    va_list vargs;
    va_start(vargs, fmt);
    MessageV(type, fmt, vargs);
    va_end(vargs);
}

Prusa-Firmware (C):

void lcd_status_printf_P(uint8_t status_type, const char* fmt, ...)
{
    va_list args;
    va_start(args, fmt);
    lcd_status_vprintf_P(status_type, fmt, args);
    va_end(args);
}

Both firmwares use similar approaches for message handling, but RepRapFirmware uses C++ classes while Prusa-Firmware relies on C-style functions. RepRapFirmware generally offers more advanced features and flexibility, while Prusa-Firmware focuses on simplicity and ease of use for Prusa printers.

Pros of Klipper

• Supports a wider range of hardware, including low-cost microcontrollers
• Advanced motion planning and kinematics calculations offloaded to host computer
• Active community development with frequent updates and new features

Cons of Klipper

• Requires a separate host computer (e.g., Raspberry Pi) to run
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and setup
• Less integrated ecosystem compared to Duet's all-in-one solution

Code Comparison

RepRapFirmware (C++):

void Move::DoDeltaCalibration(size_t numFactors, RandomProbePointSet& probePoints, const StringRef& reply)
{
    // Delta calibration code
}

Klipper (Python):

def delta_calibrate(gcmd):
    # Delta calibration code
    pass

Klipper's Python-based configuration and modular design allow for easier customization, while RepRapFirmware's C++ implementation may offer performance benefits in certain scenarios. Both projects have their strengths, with Klipper focusing on flexibility and advanced features, and RepRapFirmware providing a more integrated solution for Duet hardware.

Pros of Smoothieware

• More flexible and customizable configuration
• Supports a wider range of hardware platforms
• Active community-driven development

Cons of Smoothieware

• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• May require more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Limited support for advanced features like pressure advance

Code Comparison

Smoothieware configuration example:

temperature_control.hotend.thermistor_pin: 0.23
temperature_control.hotend.heater_pin: 2.7
temperature_control.hotend.set_m_code: 104

RepRapFirmware configuration example:

"heat": {
  "heaters": [
    {
      "pin": 1.23,
      "sensor": 0,
      "name": "Hotend"
    }
  ]
}

Both firmware projects use different approaches to configuration. Smoothieware uses a YAML-like syntax, while RepRapFirmware uses JSON. RepRapFirmware's configuration tends to be more structured and hierarchical, while Smoothieware's is flatter and more straightforward.

RepRapFirmware generally offers more advanced features and better performance optimization, but Smoothieware's flexibility and broader hardware support make it a popular choice for DIY and custom 3D printer builds.

Pros of grbl

• Lightweight and efficient, suitable for resource-constrained systems
• Widely adopted in DIY CNC community, extensive support and resources
• Simple setup and configuration process

Cons of grbl

• Limited advanced features compared to RepRapFirmware
• Primarily designed for CNC machines, less optimized for 3D printing
• Lacks built-in web interface and network connectivity

Code Comparison

grbl:

void mc_line(float *target, plan_line_data_t *pl_data)
{
  // Generate step events
  uint8_t idx;
  for (idx=0; idx<N_AXIS; idx++) {
    // Calculate target position in machine steps
    target[idx] *= settings.steps_per_mm[idx];
  }
}

RepRapFirmware:

void Move::PrepareCartesianMove(const float coords[MaxAxes], bool continuousRotationShortcut)
{
    // Calculate the move distance
    float totalDistance = 0.0;
    for (size_t axis = 0; axis < numVisibleAxes; ++axis)
    {
        const float difference = coords[axis] - currentUserPosition[axis];
        totalDistance += fsquare(difference);
    }
}