Pros of Aseprite

• Aseprite is a dedicated pixel art and sprite editor, providing a focused and specialized tool for this type of digital art.
• The application has a clean and intuitive user interface, making it easy for both beginners and experienced artists to work efficiently.
• Aseprite offers a wide range of features and tools specifically tailored for pixel art creation, such as advanced pixel-level editing, animation tools, and export options.

Cons of Aseprite

• Aseprite is a commercial software, requiring a one-time purchase or subscription, which may be a barrier for some users.
• The application is primarily focused on pixel art and may not provide the same level of functionality or versatility as a more general-purpose image editing tool like GIMP.
• The development and support for Aseprite is primarily driven by a single company, which could potentially limit the pace of new feature additions or community involvement.

Code Comparison

GIMP (GNOME/gimp):

import gimp
from gimpfu import *

def my_plugin(image, drawable):
    pdb.gimp_image_scale(image, 800, 600)
    pdb.gimp_drawable_invert(drawable)
    pdb.gimp_displays_flush()

register(
    "python_fu_my_plugin",
    "My Plugin",
    "Scales the image and inverts the drawable",
    "Your Name",
    "Open Source",
    "2023",
    "My Plugin",
    "*",
    [
        (PF_IMAGE, "image", "Input Image", None),
        (PF_DRAWABLE, "drawable", "Input Drawable", None),
    ],
    [],
    my_plugin,
    menu="<Image>/Filters/My Plugin")

main()

Aseprite (aseprite/aseprite):

#include "app/app.h"
#include "app/commands/cmd_set_palette_entry.h"
#include "app/context.h"
#include "app/document.h"
#include "app/transaction.h"
#include "doc/palette.h"

void setColorAtIndex(int index, app::Color color) {
    app::Context* context = app::Context::current();
    app::Document* doc = context->activeDocument();
    app::Transaction transaction(context, "Set Palette Entry");
    doc->setPaletteEntry(index, color);
    transaction.commit();
}

Pros of mypaint

• Lightweight and fast, with a focus on simplicity and performance
• Highly customizable with a wide range of brushes and tools
• Supports a variety of input devices, including graphics tablets and styluses

Cons of mypaint

• Lacks some of the advanced features and functionality found in GIMP, such as layer blending modes and advanced selection tools
• Smaller community and fewer third-party plugins and extensions compared to GIMP
• Limited support for file formats, with a focus on open-source formats like OpenRaster

Code Comparison

GIMP (GNOME/gimp):

import gimp
from gimpfu import *

def my_plugin(image, drawable):
    pdb.gimp_image_scale(image, 800, 600)
    pdb.gimp_drawable_invert(drawable)
    pdb.gimp_image_merge_visible_layers(image, CLIP_TO_IMAGE)
    pdb.gimp_displays_flush()

register(
    "my_plugin",
    "My GIMP Plugin",
    "Scales the image, inverts the drawable, and merges visible layers",
    "Your Name",
    "Copyright (C) 2023 Your Name",
    "2023",
    "<Image>/Filters/My Plugin",
    "*",
    [],
    [],
    my_plugin)

main()

mypaint (mypaint/mypaint):

import mypaint.lib
import mypaint.brushlib

def my_brush_stroke(surface, x, y, pressure, xtilt, ytilt, dtime):
    brush = mypaint.brushlib.Brush()
    brush.load_from_string(brush_string)
    brush.stroke_to(surface, x, y, pressure, xtilt, ytilt, dtime)

def my_plugin():
    doc = mypaint.lib.Document()
    layer = doc.layer_new()
    doc.layer_add(layer)
    doc.stroke_to(layer, my_brush_stroke, 100, 100, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.1)
    doc.save("output.ora")

my_plugin()

Pros of Piskel

• Simplicity: Piskel is a lightweight and user-friendly pixel art editor, making it a great choice for quick and simple image creation.
• Web-based: Piskel is a web-based application, allowing users to access and use it from any device with a web browser, without the need for installation.
• Collaboration: Piskel offers real-time collaboration features, enabling multiple users to work on the same project simultaneously.

Cons of Piskel

• Limited Functionality: Compared to GIMP, Piskel has a more limited set of features and tools, which may not be suitable for more complex image editing tasks.
• Lack of Advanced Editing Options: Piskel lacks some of the advanced editing options and customization features found in GIMP, such as layer management, advanced color correction, and complex selection tools.

Code Comparison

GIMP (GNOME/gimp):

import gimp
from gimpfu import *

def my_plugin(image, drawable):
    pdb.gimp_image_scale(image, 800, 600)
    pdb.gimp_drawable_invert(drawable)
    pdb.gimp_image_merge_visible_layers(image, CLIP_TO_IMAGE)
    pdb.gimp_file_save(image, drawable, "output.png", "output.png")

register(
    "python_fu_my_plugin",
    "My Plugin",
    "Scales the image, inverts the drawable, and saves the result",
    "Your Name",
    "Open source",
    "2023",
    "<Image>/Filters/My Plugin",
    "*",
    [],
    [],
    my_plugin)

main()

Piskel (piskelapp/piskel):

// Create a new canvas
var canvas = new Piskel.createCanvas(32, 32);

// Add a new layer
var layer = canvas.addLayer('Layer 1');

// Draw a pixel on the canvas
layer.setPixel(10, 10, [255, 0, 0]);

// Export the canvas as a PNG
var png = canvas.renderAsPng();

Pros of Flowblade

• Flowblade is a lightweight and fast video editor, making it a good choice for systems with limited resources.
• The user interface is designed to be intuitive and easy to use, with a focus on simplicity.
• Flowblade supports a wide range of video and audio formats, making it a versatile tool for various projects.

Cons of Flowblade

• Flowblade has a smaller user community and fewer resources available compared to GIMP, which may make it more challenging to find support and documentation.
• The feature set of Flowblade is more limited than GIMP, with fewer advanced editing tools and plugins available.
• Flowblade may not be as well-suited for complex or professional-level video editing tasks as some other video editing software.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of the code structure between GIMP and Flowblade:

GIMP (GNOME/gimp):

def gimp_plugin_main(argv):
    """Main function for GIMP plugins."""
    gimp.main(argv[0], argv[1], argv[2], plugin_main)

def plugin_main(img, drawable):
    """Main function for a GIMP plugin."""
    # Plugin code goes here
    pass

Flowblade (jliljebl/flowblade):

def main():
    """Main function for Flowblade."""
    app = Gtk.Application(application_id="com.janne.flowblade")
    app.connect("activate", on_activate)
    app.run(sys.argv)

def on_activate(app):
    """Callback function for Gtk.Application activation."""
    # Application code goes here
    pass

The key differences are that GIMP uses a more plugin-oriented structure, while Flowblade uses a Gtk.Application-based approach. Both follow common Python and GTK conventions, but the overall structure and entry points differ to suit the respective project's needs.