Pros of Navidrome

• Written in Go, resulting in better performance and lower resource usage
• Modern, responsive web UI with a sleek design
• Active development with frequent updates and new features

Cons of Navidrome

• Fewer plugins and customization options compared to Airsonic
• Lacks some advanced features like internet radio and podcasts

Code Comparison

Navidrome (Go):

func (s *Scanner) processAudioFiles(ctx context.Context, dir string, files []string) error {
    for _, f := range files {
        if err := s.processAudioFile(ctx, f); err != nil {
            log.Error(ctx, "Error processing audio file", "file", f, err)
        }
    }
    return nil
}

Airsonic (Java):

private void scanFile(MediaFile file) {
    try {
        mediaFileService.refreshMediaFile(file);
    } catch (Throwable x) {
        LOG.warn("Error in MediaScanner.scanFile()", x);
    }
}

Both projects aim to provide self-hosted music streaming solutions, but they differ in their implementation and feature sets. Navidrome offers better performance and a more modern interface, while Airsonic provides more extensive customization options and additional features. The code comparison highlights the difference in programming languages, with Navidrome using Go for potentially better performance and Airsonic using Java for broader compatibility.

Pros of slimserver

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Broader device support, including dedicated hardware players
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for enhanced functionality

Cons of slimserver

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup process
• Higher system requirements for optimal performance
• Less modern web interface compared to Airsonic

Code Comparison

Airsonic (Java):

public class MediaScannerService {
    private static final Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(MediaScannerService.class);
    private MediaLibraryStatistics statistics;
    private boolean scanning;
    private Timer timer;
}

slimserver (Perl):

package Slim::Music::Import;

use strict;
use Slim::Utils::Log;
use Slim::Utils::Prefs;

my $log = logger('scan.import');
my $prefs = preferences('server');

Both projects use object-oriented programming, but Airsonic is written in Java while slimserver uses Perl. Airsonic's code structure appears more modern and follows Java conventions, while slimserver's Perl code is more concise but may be less familiar to some developers.

slimserver's codebase is larger and more complex, reflecting its broader feature set and longer development history. Airsonic's code is generally more straightforward and easier to understand for newcomers to the project.

Pros of Gonic

• Lightweight and faster performance due to being written in Go
• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Better support for large music libraries

Cons of Gonic

• Fewer features compared to Airsonic's extensive functionality
• Smaller community and less active development
• Limited plugin support

Code Comparison

Gonic (Go):

func (c *Controller) ServeArtwork(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    artID, err := strconv.Atoi(chi.URLParam(r, "id"))
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, "invalid artwork id", 400)
        return
    }
    // ... (artwork serving logic)
}

Airsonic (Java):

public void getAvatar(@RequestParam("username") String username,
                      HttpServletResponse response) throws Exception {
    User user = securityService.getUserByName(username);
    if (user == null) {
        response.sendError(HttpServletResponse.SC_NOT_FOUND);
        return;
    }
    // ... (avatar serving logic)
}

Both repositories provide self-hosted music streaming solutions, but Gonic focuses on simplicity and performance, while Airsonic offers a more feature-rich experience. Gonic's Go implementation may lead to better performance, especially for larger libraries, but Airsonic's Java codebase provides more extensive functionality and plugin support. The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches to handling HTTP requests in their respective languages.

Pros of OwnTone

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance and lower resource usage
• Supports AirPlay and Chromecast for seamless streaming to various devices
• Includes a built-in web interface for easy management and playback control

Cons of OwnTone

• Smaller community and less frequent updates compared to Airsonic
• Limited plugin ecosystem, offering fewer extensibility options
• Lacks some advanced features like user management and playlist sharing

Code Comparison

OwnTone (C):

int mpd_command_playid(struct mpd_command *cmd)
{
  int songid;
  int ret;

  ret = safe_atoi(cmd->arg, &songid);
  if (ret < 0)
    return -1;

  return player_playid(songid);
}

Airsonic (Java):

public void play(int id) {
    Player player = playerService.getPlayer(getPlayer());
    MediaFile file = mediaFileService.getMediaFile(id);
    playQueue.addFiles(false, file);
    player.play(playQueue.getFiles().get(0));
}

This comparison highlights the language difference between the two projects, with OwnTone using C for potentially better performance, while Airsonic uses Java for easier development and cross-platform compatibility.