Pros of ChatHub

• More active development with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Supports a wider range of AI models, including Claude and OpenAI's GPT-4
• Offers a browser extension for easy access across different websites

Cons of ChatHub

• Less customizable user interface compared to Anse
• Requires a browser extension, which may not be suitable for all users
• Limited documentation and community support

Code Comparison

Anse (Vue.js component):

<script setup lang="ts">
import { computed } from 'vue'
import { useScroll } from '@vueuse/core'
import { useSettingStore } from '@/stores'

const { y } = useScroll(window)
const settingStore = useSettingStore()
</script>

ChatHub (React component):

import React, { useEffect, useState } from 'react'
import { useSelector, useDispatch } from 'react-redux'
import { setTheme } from '../store/settings'
import { ThemeProvider } from 'styled-components'

const App: React.FC = () => {
  const dispatch = useDispatch()
  const theme = useSelector((state: RootState) => state.settings.theme)

Both projects use modern frontend frameworks (Vue.js for Anse and React for ChatHub) and implement state management. Anse utilizes Vue's Composition API, while ChatHub employs React hooks and Redux for state management. The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches to setting up components and managing application state in each project.

Pros of Lobe Chat

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Extensive localization support for multiple languages
• Advanced features like role-based chat and plugin system

Cons of Lobe Chat

• Higher complexity, potentially steeper learning curve
• Requires more system resources due to additional features

Code Comparison

Lobe Chat (TypeScript):

export const ChatMessage: FC<Props> = memo(({ message, showTitle }) => {
  const { avatar, backgroundColor, title } = useMessageModel(message);
  return (
    <Flexbox align={'flex-start'} horizontal>
      <MessageAvatar avatar={avatar} backgroundColor={backgroundColor} />
      <MessageContent message={message} showTitle={showTitle} title={title} />
    </Flexbox>
  );
});

Anse (Vue):

<template>
  <div class="flex flex-col">
    <MessageItem
      v-for="(message, index) in messages"
      :key="index"
      :message="message"
      :show-avatar="showAvatar(index)"
    />
  </div>
</template>

Summary

Lobe Chat offers a more feature-rich experience with active development and localization support, but may be more complex to use. Anse provides a simpler interface with potentially easier setup. The code comparison shows Lobe Chat using React/TypeScript with more granular components, while Anse uses Vue with a more straightforward template structure.

Pros of chatbot-ui

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Supports multiple AI models, including GPT-4 and Anthropic's Claude
• Offers a more comprehensive set of features, such as conversation history and custom instructions

Cons of chatbot-ui

• More complex setup process, requiring API keys and environment configuration
• Heavier resource usage due to its broader feature set
• Less focus on minimalism and simplicity in the user interface

Code Comparison

anse:

const Chat = () => {
  const { conversationId } = useParams()
  const conversation = useConversationStore(s => s.conversations.find(c => c.id === conversationId))
  // ... (simplified for brevity)
}

chatbot-ui:

const Chat: FC<Props> = ({ conversation, messages, models, apiKey, serverSideApiKeyIsSet, messageIsStreaming }) => {
  const [currentMessage, setCurrentMessage] = useState<Message>();
  const [autoScrollEnabled, setAutoScrollEnabled] = useState<boolean>(true);
  // ... (simplified for brevity)
}

The code comparison shows that chatbot-ui uses TypeScript and has a more complex component structure with additional props and state management. anse, on the other hand, uses JavaScript and appears to have a simpler component structure. This reflects the overall difference in complexity and feature set between the two projects.

Pros of ChatGPT-Next-Web

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Supports multiple languages and has a larger user base
• Offers a more polished and feature-rich user interface

Cons of ChatGPT-Next-Web

• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Anse
• May be overwhelming for users looking for a simpler, lightweight solution
• Higher resource consumption due to additional features

Code Comparison

ChatGPT-Next-Web:

export function Markdown(props: { content: string }) {
  return (
    <ReactMarkdown
      remarkPlugins={[remarkGfm, remarkMath]}
      rehypePlugins={[rehypeMathjax, rehypeHighlight]}
      components={{
        pre: PreCode,
        p: (pProps) => <p {...pProps} dir="auto" />,
      }}
    >
      {props.content}
    </ReactMarkdown>
  );
}

Anse:

export const Markdown = ({ content }: { content: string }) => {
  return (
    <ReactMarkdown
      rehypePlugins={[rehypeRaw]}
      components={{
        pre: Pre,
        code: Code,
      }}
    >
      {content}
    </ReactMarkdown>
  );
};

Both projects use ReactMarkdown for rendering, but ChatGPT-Next-Web includes additional plugins for enhanced functionality, while Anse keeps it simpler with fewer components and plugins.

Pros of chatgpt-web

• More active development with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Supports multiple API endpoints, including Azure OpenAI
• Offers a clean and intuitive user interface

Cons of chatgpt-web

• Limited customization options compared to anse
• Lacks support for multiple AI models beyond ChatGPT
• Does not offer a mobile app or responsive design for smaller screens

Code Comparison

anse:

import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
import vue from '@vitejs/plugin-vue'
import { VitePWA } from 'vite-plugin-pwa'

export default defineConfig({
  plugins: [vue(), VitePWA()],
})

chatgpt-web:

import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
import path from 'path'
import vue from '@vitejs/plugin-vue'

export default defineConfig({
  resolve: {
    alias: {
      '@': path.resolve(__dirname, 'src'),
    },
  },
  plugins: [vue()],
})

The code comparison shows that anse includes PWA support out of the box, while chatgpt-web focuses on path aliasing for improved import management. Both projects use Vue and Vite for their development setup, but anse appears to have a more feature-rich configuration.

Pros of ChuanhuChatGPT

• More extensive language support, including Chinese and other languages
• Offers a wider range of AI models, including Claude and ChatGLM
• Includes advanced features like API key management and conversation exporting

Cons of ChuanhuChatGPT

• Less polished user interface compared to Anse's modern design
• May be more complex to set up and configure for new users
• Lacks some of Anse's features like multi-modal conversations and image generation

Code Comparison

ChuanhuChatGPT (Python):

def predict(self, inputs, max_new_tokens=512, top_p=0.7, temperature=0.95):
    inputs = self.tokenizer(inputs, return_tensors="pt")
    outputs = self.model.generate(**inputs, max_new_tokens=max_new_tokens, top_p=top_p, temperature=temperature)
    return self.tokenizer.decode(outputs[0], skip_special_tokens=True)

Anse (JavaScript):

async function generateCompletion(prompt, options = {}) {
  const response = await fetch('/api/generate', {
    method: 'POST',
    headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' },
    body: JSON.stringify({ prompt, ...options }),
  });
  return response.json();
}

Both repositories offer chat interfaces for AI models, but they differ in implementation and features. ChuanhuChatGPT provides more options for models and languages, while Anse focuses on a sleek, user-friendly experience with multi-modal capabilities.