Pros of Ardour

• More advanced features for professional audio production
• Better support for MIDI and virtual instruments
• Highly customizable user interface and workflow

Cons of Ardour

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less widespread adoption compared to Audacity
• May require more system resources

Code Comparison

Audacity (C++):

void AudacityProject::OnSave(wxCommandEvent & event)
{
   if (mDirManager->GetProjectName() == wxT(""))
      OnSaveAs(event);
   else
      Save();
}

Ardour (C++):

void
Session::save_state (string snapshot_name, bool pending)
{
    StateProtector sp (this);
    save_state_to_file (snapshot_name, pending);
    set_dirty (false);
}

Both projects use C++ for their core functionality. Audacity's code appears more focused on GUI events, while Ardour's code shows a more complex session management system, reflecting its professional-grade features.

Audacity is known for its simplicity and ease of use, making it popular among beginners and casual users. Ardour, on the other hand, caters to professional audio engineers and musicians, offering more advanced features and greater flexibility at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of LMMS

• Full-featured digital audio workstation (DAW) with MIDI support
• Includes built-in synthesizers and virtual instruments
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of LMMS

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less suitable for simple audio editing tasks
• Smaller community and fewer third-party plugins compared to Audacity

Code Comparison

LMMS (C++):

void MainWindow::updatePlayPauseIcons()
{
    m_playAction->setIcon(embed::getIconPixmap("play"));
    m_pauseAction->setIcon(embed::getIconPixmap("pause"));
}

Audacity (C++):

void ControlToolBar::UpdatePlay(bool down)
{
    mPlay->SetAlternate(down);
    mPlay->SetShift(down);
    mPlay->Refresh();
}

Both projects use C++ and have similar code structures for UI-related functions. LMMS focuses on DAW-specific features, while Audacity's code is more geared towards audio editing and processing.

Pros of cmus

• Lightweight and efficient, ideal for terminal users
• Faster startup and lower resource usage
• Simple and intuitive keyboard-driven interface

Cons of cmus

• Limited to audio playback, lacks audio editing capabilities
• Smaller feature set compared to full-fledged audio workstations
• Less user-friendly for those unfamiliar with command-line interfaces

Code Comparison

cmus (C):

static int cmus_play_file(const char *filename)
{
    struct track_info *ti;
    ti = cmus_get_track_info(filename);
    if (!ti)
        return -1;
    player_set_file(ti);
    return 0;
}

Audacity (C++):

bool AudacityProject::OpenFile(const wxString &fileName)
{
   ProjectFileIORegistry::Get(*this).LoadProject(fileName);
   mLastSavedTracks = TrackList::Create(nullptr);
   mLastSavedTracks->Copy(*GetTracks());
   return true;
}

Summary

cmus is a lightweight, terminal-based music player, while Audacity is a full-featured audio editor and recorder. cmus offers faster performance and a simpler interface, but lacks the extensive editing capabilities of Audacity. The code snippets illustrate the difference in complexity, with cmus focusing on efficient playback and Audacity handling more complex file operations and track management.