Pros of czkawka

• Written in Rust, potentially offering better performance and memory safety
• Supports more file types for comparison, including music files
• Offers a command-line interface in addition to GUI

Cons of czkawka

• Less mature project with fewer contributors
• May have a steeper learning curve for non-technical users
• GUI interface is less polished compared to dupeguru

Code comparison

czkawka (Rust):

pub fn find_duplicates(
    directories: &[String],
    recursive: bool,
    excluded_directories: &[String],
    minimal_file_size: u64,
) -> Vec<Vec<FileEntry>> {
    // Implementation details
}

dupeguru (Python):

def get_dupe_groups(directories, callback=None, *args, **kwargs):
    scanner = Scanner()
    scanner.set_directories(directories)
    scanner.set_scan_type(kwargs.get('scan_type', ScanType.Contents))
    return scanner.get_dupe_groups(callback)

Both projects aim to find duplicate files, but czkawka's implementation in Rust may offer performance benefits. dupeguru's Python code appears more concise and potentially easier to read for those familiar with the language. czkawka's function signature suggests more granular control over the scanning process, while dupeguru's approach seems more high-level and abstracted.

Pros of fdupes

• Lightweight and fast, focusing solely on duplicate file detection
• Command-line interface allows for easy integration into scripts and automation
• Supports recursive directory scanning and hardlink creation

Cons of fdupes

• Limited file comparison options compared to dupeguru
• Lacks a graphical user interface, which may be less user-friendly for some
• Does not support content-aware duplicate detection for certain file types

Code Comparison

fdupes:

if (checktree(files, &files) == 0) {
  errormsg("no duplicates found.");
  exit(0);
}

dupeguru:

def get_dupe_groups(directories, *args, **kwargs):
    scanner = ScannerImpl(*args, **kwargs)
    return scanner.get_dupe_groups(directories)

Summary

fdupes is a lightweight, command-line tool focused on efficient duplicate file detection, while dupeguru offers a more comprehensive solution with a graphical interface and advanced file comparison options. fdupes is better suited for users comfortable with command-line operations and scripting, while dupeguru provides a more user-friendly experience with additional features for content-aware duplicate detection.

Pros of rmlint

• Written in C, potentially offering better performance for large-scale operations
• Supports a wider range of duplicate detection methods, including content-based and metadata-based
• Provides a command-line interface, making it suitable for scripting and automation

Cons of rmlint

• Less user-friendly for non-technical users compared to dupeguru's GUI
• May require more setup and configuration for optimal use
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily Linux-focused)

Code Comparison

rmlint (C):

gint64 rm_file_size(const char *path) {
    struct stat stat_buf;
    if(stat(path, &stat_buf) == -1) {
        return -1;
    }
    return stat_buf.st_size;
}

dupeguru (Python):

def get_file_size(path):
    try:
        return os.path.getsize(path)
    except OSError:
        return 0

Both functions aim to retrieve file sizes, but rmlint's implementation in C offers more direct system call usage, potentially providing better performance for large-scale operations. However, dupeguru's Python implementation is more concise and leverages high-level language features for simplicity.