Pros of Zrythm

• Full-featured Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) with a comprehensive set of tools for music production
• Supports both audio and MIDI editing, offering a more versatile platform for music creation
• Provides a traditional timeline-based workflow, which may be more familiar to users of other DAWs

Cons of Zrythm

• Less modular and flexible compared to Rack's patch-based approach
• Smaller community and plugin ecosystem, limiting the availability of third-party extensions
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to DAW software

Code Comparison

Zrythm (C):

void
region_init (AudioRegion * self)
{
  self->name = g_strdup (_("Region"));
  self->id.type = REGION_TYPE_AUDIO;
  self->id.track_name_hash = 0;
  self->id.lane_pos = -1;
  self->id.idx = -1;
}

Rack (C++):

void Module::process(const ProcessArgs& args) {
    // Subclasses should override this method
}

void Module::onSampleRateChange() {
    // Subclasses can override this method
}

The code snippets show different approaches: Zrythm focuses on audio region initialization, while Rack provides a modular structure for processing audio and handling sample rate changes.

Pros of Surge

• Fully-featured standalone synthesizer with a wide range of sound design capabilities
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux) and available as a plugin (VST, AU, LV2)
• Active development with frequent updates and community contributions

Cons of Surge

• Less modular and customizable compared to Rack's open-ended patching system
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its complex interface and features
• Limited third-party module support compared to Rack's extensive ecosystem

Code Comparison

Surge (C++):

void SurgeVoice::processBlock(float *__restrict L, float *__restrict R, int nSamples)
{
    for (int s = 0; s < nSamples; ++s)
    {
        float output = oscillators.render() + noise.process();
        L[s] += output * pan_L;
        R[s] += output * pan_R;
    }
}

Rack (C++):

void Engine::process(float deltaTime) {
    for (Module* module : modules) {
        module->process(deltaTime);
    }
    for (Cable* cable : cables) {
        cable->process();
    }
}

Both projects use C++ for their core audio processing, but Surge focuses on a traditional synthesizer architecture, while Rack emphasizes modular patching and flexibility.

Pros of Score

• More focused on timeline-based composition and sequencing
• Supports scripting and custom DSP development
• Integrates with various protocols like OSC, MIDI, and DMX

Cons of Score

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less extensive module library compared to Rack
• More complex setup process

Code Comparison

Score (C++):

struct MyProcess : public ossia::node_process {
  void run(ossia::token_request tk, ossia::exec_state_facade st) override {
    // Custom DSP code here
  }
};

Rack (C++):

struct MyModule : Module {
  void process(const ProcessArgs& args) override {
    // Module processing code here
  }
};

Key Differences

• Score focuses on interactive and intermedia compositions, while Rack emulates modular synthesizers
• Score uses a node-based visual programming interface, whereas Rack employs a more traditional modular patching approach
• Score offers more extensive timeline and automation features, while Rack excels in real-time sound generation and processing

Both projects are open-source and actively maintained, catering to different aspects of electronic music production and sound design. The choice between them depends on the user's specific needs and workflow preferences.