Pros of Sway

• More mature and stable project with a larger user base
• Strictly adheres to i3 compatibility, making it familiar for i3 users
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Sway

• Less flexible and customizable compared to Wayfire
• Limited built-in effects and animations
• Steeper learning curve for users new to tiling window managers

Code Comparison

Sway configuration (sway/config):

input * {
    xkb_layout "us"
}
output * bg ~/wallpaper.png fill
bar {
    status_command i3status
}

Wayfire configuration (wayfire.ini):

[input]
xkb_layout = us

[output]
background = ~/wallpaper.png

[panel]
launcher_cmd = wofi --show drun

Wayfire offers a more modular and plugin-based approach, allowing for easier customization and extension. Sway's configuration closely mirrors i3, maintaining compatibility but potentially limiting flexibility for users seeking more advanced features.

Both projects are actively developed Wayland compositors, with Sway focusing on i3 compatibility and stability, while Wayfire emphasizes customization and extensibility through its plugin system.

Pros of Hyprland

• More active development with frequent updates and new features
• Better performance and smoother animations
• Extensive customization options through configuration files

Cons of Hyprland

• Steeper learning curve due to complex configuration options
• Less stable compared to Wayfire, as it's a newer project
• Limited documentation and smaller community support

Code Comparison

Hyprland configuration example:

monitor=,preferred,auto,1

input {
    kb_layout = us
    follow_mouse = 1
}

general {
    gaps_in = 5
    gaps_out = 20
    border_size = 2
    col.active_border = rgba(33ccffee)
}

Wayfire configuration example:

[core]
plugins = alpha animate autostart command cube decoration expo fast-switcher fisheye grid idle invert move oswitch place resize switcher vswitch window-rules wobbly zoom

[decoration]
border_size = 4
active_color = \#33CCFFEE
inactive_color = \#333333AA

Both compositors offer configuration files, but Hyprland's syntax is more concise and offers more granular control over various aspects of the window manager.

Pros of labwc

• Lightweight and minimalistic, focusing on simplicity and efficiency
• Follows traditional stacking window manager paradigms, familiar to users of Openbox
• Written in C, potentially offering better performance and lower resource usage

Cons of labwc

• Less feature-rich compared to Wayfire's plugin system and extensibility
• Limited customization options due to its minimalistic approach
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially resulting in fewer third-party contributions

Code Comparison

labwc (main.c):

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    struct server server = { 0 };
    return run(&server, argc, argv);
}

Wayfire (main.cpp):

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    wf::log::initialize_logging();
    auto core = std::make_unique<wf::core_t>();
    return core->run(argc, argv);
}

Both projects use a similar main function structure, but Wayfire's implementation shows its object-oriented C++ approach, while labwc uses a more traditional C structure-based design. Wayfire's code hints at its more complex architecture with logging initialization and a core object, whereas labwc's simplicity is evident in its straightforward server structure.

Pros of River

• Minimalist and lightweight design, focusing on simplicity
• Written in Zig, offering memory safety and performance benefits
• Highly customizable through a simple configuration language

Cons of River

• Less feature-rich compared to Wayfire's extensive plugin system
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially leading to fewer resources and extensions
• Steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with tiling window managers

Code Comparison

River configuration example:

riverctl map normal Super+Shift Return spawn foot
riverctl map normal Super P spawn bemenu-run
riverctl default-layout rivertile

Wayfire configuration example:

[key-bindings]
terminal = <super> <shift> KEY_ENTER
launcher = <super> KEY_P

[core]
plugins = [
  autostart
  grid
  ...
]

River focuses on a programmatic approach to configuration, while Wayfire uses a more traditional ini-style format. Wayfire's plugin system allows for more extensive customization, but River's minimalist design may appeal to users who prefer a simpler setup.

Both projects are actively developed Wayland compositors, with Wayfire offering a more feature-complete experience out of the box, while River provides a lightweight and highly customizable alternative for users who enjoy tiling window managers.