Pros of ncmpcpp

• Rich, customizable text-based user interface
• Advanced features like tag editing and music visualization
• More user-friendly for direct interaction compared to MPD

Cons of ncmpcpp

• Requires MPD to function, not a standalone player
• Higher resource usage due to the full-featured interface
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

MPD (server-side playlist handling):

static void
playlist_edit(struct playlist *playlist,
              unsigned start, unsigned end,
              const struct song *new_song)
{
    for (unsigned i = start; i < end; ++i)
        playlist->songs[i] = new_song;
}

ncmpcpp (client-side playlist display):

void
Playlist::SetSelectedItemsPriority(int prio)
{
    for (size_t i = 0; i < m_items.size(); ++i)
        if (m_items[i].isSelected())
            Mpd.SetPriority(m_items[i].getID(), prio);
}

This comparison highlights the different roles of MPD (server-side music management) and ncmpcpp (client-side interface and control). MPD focuses on core playlist manipulation, while ncmpcpp handles user interactions and sends commands to MPD.

Pros of Mopidy

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for contributions and extensions
• Supports a wider range of audio sources, including streaming services
• Offers a more modern and flexible architecture with plugin support

Cons of Mopidy

• Generally consumes more system resources than MPD
• May have slower performance for large local music libraries
• Less mature and potentially less stable than MPD

Code Comparison

MPD (C++):

bool
playlist::AddSongToPlaylist(const char *uri, const char *playlist_name,
                            unsigned *added_id)
{
    return spl_add_uri(uri, playlist_name, added_id);
}

Mopidy (Python):

def add(self, uri, at_position=None):
    if uri is None:
        raise ValueError('uri can not be None')
    return self._add_internal([uri], at_position)

Both examples show methods for adding songs to playlists, but Mopidy's implementation is in Python, making it more readable and easier to modify for many developers. MPD's C++ code may offer better performance but is generally more complex to work with.

Pros of musikcube

• Cross-platform GUI application with a more user-friendly interface
• Built-in audio visualization features
• Supports plugins for extended functionality

Cons of musikcube

• Less mature and potentially less stable than MPD
• Smaller community and fewer third-party clients
• May consume more system resources due to the GUI

Code comparison

MPD (C++):

bool
playlist::AddSongToPlaylist(const char *uri, const char *playlist_name,
                            unsigned *added_id)
{
    return spl_add_uri(uri, playlist_name, added_id);
}

musikcube (C++):

bool PlaybackService::Next() {
    if (this->playlist) {
        return this->playlist->Next();
    }
    return false;
}

Both projects use C++ for their core functionality. MPD focuses on a server-client architecture, while musikcube is a standalone application. MPD's code tends to be more modular and focused on specific functions, while musikcube's code integrates various components within a single application structure.

MPD is known for its flexibility and extensive feature set, making it popular for advanced users and headless setups. musikcube, on the other hand, offers a more accessible experience for users who prefer a graphical interface and integrated functionality.

Pros of DeaDBeeF

• User-friendly graphical interface, making it more accessible for desktop users
• Supports a wider range of audio formats out-of-the-box
• Includes built-in audio effects and equalizer

Cons of DeaDBeeF

• Limited to desktop environments, lacking the flexibility of a client-server model
• Less suitable for headless or server-based setups
• Fewer options for remote control and network streaming

Code Comparison

MPD uses a client-server architecture, as seen in its main function:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    daemonize_close_stdin();
    daemonize_set_user();
    server_init();
    server_run();
    return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

DeaDBeeF, being a standalone player, has a more GUI-oriented structure:

int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
    deadbeef = deadbeef_get_api();
    gtk_init (&argc, &argv);
    deadbeef_init (argc, argv);
    gtkui_init ();
    gtk_main ();
    return 0;
}

These code snippets highlight the fundamental differences in architecture between the two projects, with MPD focusing on server functionality and DeaDBeeF emphasizing the GUI aspect.

Pros of Spotifyd

• Specifically designed for Spotify streaming, offering seamless integration with the Spotify ecosystem
• Lightweight and resource-efficient, ideal for low-powered devices
• Supports Spotify Connect, allowing control from various devices

Cons of Spotifyd

• Limited to Spotify's music library and streaming service
• Lacks support for local music files and other streaming platforms
• Less customizable compared to MPD's extensive configuration options

Code Comparison

MPD configuration example:

music_directory		"/var/lib/mpd/music"
playlist_directory	"/var/lib/mpd/playlists"
db_file			"/var/lib/mpd/tag_cache"
log_file		"/var/log/mpd/mpd.log"
pid_file		"/run/mpd/pid"

Spotifyd configuration example:

[global]
username = "USER"
password = "PASS"
backend = "alsa"
device = "alsa_audio_device"
mixer = "PCM"

MPD offers more extensive configuration options, allowing for greater customization of the music playback environment. Spotifyd's configuration is simpler and focused on Spotify-specific settings.

MPD is a versatile music player daemon supporting various audio formats and sources, while Spotifyd is tailored specifically for Spotify streaming. MPD provides broader functionality and flexibility, whereas Spotifyd offers a more streamlined experience for Spotify users.