Pros of Files

• More modern and feature-rich UI with a fluent design
• Supports tabs and multiple panes for efficient file management
• Integrates with Windows 11 context menu and supports themes

Cons of Files

• Limited to Windows platforms, not cross-platform like Simple File Manager
• Larger codebase and potentially more complex to maintain
• May have a steeper learning curve for users accustomed to traditional file explorers

Code Comparison

Simple File Manager (Kotlin):

override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main)
    setupOptionsMenu()
    refreshItems()
}

Files (C#):

protected override void OnNavigatedTo(NavigationEventArgs e)
{
    base.OnNavigatedTo(e);
    var parameters = e.Parameter as NavigationArguments;
    await FilesystemViewModel.SetWorkingDirectoryAsync(parameters.NavPathParam);
}

Both projects use different languages and frameworks, reflecting their target platforms. Simple File Manager uses Kotlin for Android development, while Files uses C# for Windows development. The code snippets show basic navigation and initialization methods, highlighting the different approaches taken by each project to handle file system operations and user interface setup.

Pros of NewPipe

• Offers advanced features for YouTube streaming and downloading
• Supports background playback and picture-in-picture mode
• Provides a more comprehensive media experience

Cons of NewPipe

• More complex codebase due to its specialized functionality
• Requires frequent updates to maintain compatibility with YouTube changes
• Limited to video streaming platforms, unlike a general file manager

Code Comparison

NewPipe (Java):

@Override
protected Single<ListExtractor.InfoItemsPage> loadResult(final String url) {
    return Single.fromCallable(() -> SearchExtractor.getSearchQueryFromUrl(url))
            .flatMap(query -> SearchExtractor.getSearchExtractor(query, Collections.emptyList(), getContentCountry()))
            .flatMap(extractor -> ExtractorHelper.getItemsPageOrLogError(extractor, 0));
}

Simple-File-Manager (Kotlin):

private fun getItems(path: String): ArrayList<ListItem> {
    val items = ArrayList<ListItem>()
    val files = File(path).listFiles()?.filterNotNull()
    files?.sortWith(compareBy({ !it.isDirectory }, { it.name.toLowerCase() }))
    files?.forEach {
        val curPath = it.absolutePath
        val curName = it.name
        val isDirectory = it.isDirectory
        val children = if (isDirectory) it.listFiles()?.size ?: 0 else 0
        val size = if (isDirectory) 0 else it.length()
        val modified = it.lastModified()
        items.add(ListItem(curPath, curName, isDirectory, children, size, modified))
    }
    return items
}

The code snippets highlight the different focus areas of each project, with NewPipe handling video extraction and Simple-File-Manager dealing with file system operations.

Pros of MaterialFiles

• More modern UI with Material Design principles
• Supports advanced features like root access and SMB/FTP protocols
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of MaterialFiles

• Larger app size due to additional features and UI components
• May be more complex for users who prefer a simpler interface
• Potentially higher battery consumption due to advanced features

Code Comparison

MaterialFiles uses Kotlin and follows a more modern Android development approach:

class FileListFragment : Fragment() {
    private val viewModel: FileListViewModel by viewModels()
    // ...
}

Simple-File-Manager uses Java and a more traditional approach:

public class ItemsFragment extends BaseAbstractFragment {
    private ArrayList<FileDirItem> mItems = new ArrayList<>();
    // ...
}

MaterialFiles employs a ViewModel architecture, while Simple-File-Manager uses a more direct approach with fragment-based state management. This difference reflects the overall design philosophy of each project, with MaterialFiles adopting newer Android development patterns and Simple-File-Manager maintaining a simpler, more traditional structure.

Pros of FastHub

• More feature-rich GitHub client with extensive GitHub API integration
• Supports multiple accounts and organizations
• Offers a dark theme and customizable UI

Cons of FastHub

• Larger app size due to more complex functionality
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users
• Less frequently updated compared to Simple-File-Manager

Code Comparison

FastHub (Kotlin):

override fun onOptionsItemSelected(item: MenuItem): Boolean {
    when (item.itemId) {
        android.R.id.home -> {
            onBackPressed()
            return true
        }
    }
    return super.onOptionsItemSelected(item)
}

Simple-File-Manager (Kotlin):

override fun onOptionsItemSelected(item: MenuItem): Boolean {
    when (item.itemId) {
        R.id.sort -> showSortingDialog()
        R.id.add_favorite -> addFavorite()
        R.id.remove_favorite -> removeFavorite()
        else -> return super.onOptionsItemSelected(item)
    }
    return true
}

While both projects use Kotlin, FastHub focuses on GitHub-specific functionality, whereas Simple-File-Manager provides more general file management options. FastHub's code demonstrates handling of the home button press, while Simple-File-Manager's code shows various file management actions like sorting and managing favorites.

Pros of Nextcloud Android

• Offers cloud synchronization and remote file access
• Includes advanced features like file sharing and collaborative editing
• Integrates with other Nextcloud services and apps

Cons of Nextcloud Android

• More complex setup and configuration required
• Larger app size and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

Simple-File-Manager:

override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main)
    setupViews()
    setupAdapter()
}

Nextcloud Android:

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
    setupToolbar();
    setupDrawer();
    setupContent();
}

Both projects use similar patterns for initializing their main activities, but Nextcloud Android includes additional setup for its more complex UI components like the toolbar and drawer.

Simple-File-Manager focuses on local file management with a straightforward interface, while Nextcloud Android offers a comprehensive cloud-based file management solution with additional features and integrations. The choice between the two depends on whether users need local-only file management or prefer a cloud-connected solution with more advanced capabilities.

Pros of Termux

• Provides a full Linux terminal environment on Android
• Supports package management and installation of various tools
• Offers extensive customization options for power users

Cons of Termux

• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users
• Limited graphical user interface for file management
• May require root access for certain advanced features

Code Comparison

Simple-File-Manager (Kotlin):

override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main)
    setupViews()
}

Termux (Java):

@Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
    setContentView(R.layout.drawer_layout);
    mTerminalView = findViewById(R.id.terminal_view);
}

Simple-File-Manager focuses on providing a user-friendly interface for file management tasks, while Termux offers a powerful terminal environment for advanced users. Simple-File-Manager is written in Kotlin and emphasizes simplicity, whereas Termux is implemented in Java and provides a more complex set of features for terminal emulation and package management. The code snippets show the different approaches in setting up the main activity, with Simple-File-Manager using a custom setupViews() method and Termux directly initializing the terminal view.