Pros of xmonad

• Written in Haskell, offering strong type safety and functional programming benefits
• Highly extensible and customizable through Haskell modules
• Minimal resource usage and excellent performance

Cons of xmonad

• Steeper learning curve due to Haskell configuration
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Awesome
• Less out-of-the-box functionality, requiring more manual configuration

Code Comparison

xmonad

main = xmonad $ def
    { modMask = mod4Mask
    , layoutHook = Tall 1 (3/100) (1/2) ||| Full
    , terminal = "xterm"
    }

awesome

awful.layout.layouts = {
    awful.layout.suit.floating,
    awful.layout.suit.tile,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.left,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.bottom,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.top,
}

The xmonad configuration is more concise and leverages Haskell's functional nature, while Awesome's Lua-based configuration is more imperative and verbose. xmonad's approach may be more powerful for advanced users, but Awesome's style is generally easier for beginners to understand and modify.

Pros of i3

• Simpler configuration using a plain text file
• More lightweight and faster startup times
• Easier to learn for beginners due to its straightforward tiling approach

Cons of i3

• Less customizable compared to Awesome
• Limited support for floating windows and dynamic layouts
• Lacks built-in widgets and more advanced features

Code Comparison

i3 configuration example:

bar {
    status_command i3status
    position top
}

bindsym $mod+Return exec i3-sensible-terminal
bindsym $mod+Shift+q kill

Awesome configuration example (Lua):

awful.key({ modkey }, "Return", function() awful.spawn(terminal) end),
awful.key({ modkey, "Shift" }, "q", function() client.focus:kill() end),

awful.wibar({ position = "top", screen = s })

Both window managers use configuration files to define keybindings and UI elements. i3 uses a simpler, more readable syntax, while Awesome leverages Lua for more complex configurations and customizations.

i3 focuses on a straightforward tiling approach with minimal overhead, making it ideal for users who prefer simplicity and efficiency. Awesome, on the other hand, offers more advanced features and customization options, catering to power users who want granular control over their desktop environment.

Pros of bspwm

• Lightweight and minimalist design, consuming fewer system resources
• Highly customizable through simple shell scripts
• True tiling window manager with automatic window splitting

Cons of bspwm

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Lacks built-in features like a status bar or system tray
• Requires additional tools for basic functionality (e.g., sxhkd for keybindings)

Code Comparison

bspwm configuration (bspwmrc):

#! /bin/sh

bspc monitor -d I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
bspc config border_width         2
bspc config window_gap          12
bspc config split_ratio          0.52
bspc config borderless_monocle   true

awesome configuration (rc.lua):

local awful = require("awful")
awful.layout.layouts = {
    awful.layout.suit.floating,
    awful.layout.suit.tile,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.left,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.bottom,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.top,
}

Both bspwm and awesome are popular window managers for Linux, but they cater to different user preferences. bspwm is a minimalist tiling window manager that focuses on simplicity and efficiency, while awesome offers a more feature-rich environment with built-in widgets and layouts. The choice between them depends on the user's desired level of customization and out-of-the-box functionality.

Pros of herbstluftwm

• Simpler configuration using shell scripts
• More flexible tiling layouts with manual splitting
• Lighter resource usage

Cons of herbstluftwm

• Less feature-rich out of the box
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customization

Code Comparison

herbstluftwm configuration (bash script):

hc keybind $Mod-Shift-q quit
hc keybind $Mod-Shift-r reload
hc keybind $Mod-w close
hc keybind $Mod-Return spawn ${TERMINAL:-xterm}

awesome configuration (Lua):

awful.key({ modkey, "Shift"   }, "q", awesome.quit),
awful.key({ modkey, "Shift"   }, "r", awesome.restart),
awful.key({ modkey,           }, "w", function () client.focus:kill() end),
awful.key({ modkey,           }, "Return", function () awful.spawn(terminal) end),

Both window managers allow for extensive customization, but herbstluftwm uses shell scripts for configuration, while awesome uses Lua. herbstluftwm offers more manual control over window layouts, while awesome provides a more feature-rich environment with widgets and pre-configured layouts. The choice between them often comes down to personal preference and specific needs.

Pros of qtile

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for customization and scripting
• Supports multiple screens and layouts out of the box
• Has a built-in widget system for easy statusbar customization

Cons of qtile

• Less mature and smaller community compared to awesome
• Fewer pre-built widgets and extensions available
• May have slightly higher resource usage due to Python runtime

Code Comparison

qtile configuration example:

from libqtile import bar, layout, widget
from libqtile.config import Key, Group, Drag, Click
from libqtile.lazy import lazy

keys = [
    Key(["mod1"], "k", lazy.layout.down()),
    Key(["mod1"], "j", lazy.layout.up()),
]

awesome configuration example:

local awful = require("awful")
local beautiful = require("beautiful")

awful.rules.rules = {
    { rule = { },
      properties = { border_width = beautiful.border_width,
                     border_color = beautiful.border_normal,
                     focus = awful.client.focus.filter,
                     raise = true,
                     keys = clientkeys,
                     buttons = clientbuttons } },
}

Both window managers offer powerful customization options, but qtile's Python-based configuration may be more familiar to some users, while awesome's Lua-based setup provides a lightweight and efficient environment.

Pros of Sway

• Native Wayland support, offering better performance and security
• Seamless HiDPI and mixed DPI setups
• Drop-in replacement for i3, easing transition for i3 users

Cons of Sway

• Limited compatibility with X11 applications
• Less customizable compared to Awesome's Lua scripting
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party tools

Code Comparison

Sway configuration (sway/config):

input * {
    xkb_layout "us"
    xkb_variant "dvorak"
}

Awesome configuration (rc.lua):

awful.keyboard.append_global_keybindings({
    awful.key({ modkey }, "s", hotkeys_popup.show_help,
              {description="show help", group="awesome"})
})

Sway focuses on a more straightforward configuration syntax, while Awesome leverages Lua for advanced customization. Sway's config is similar to i3, making it familiar for i3 users. Awesome's use of Lua allows for more complex behaviors and integrations.

Both window managers offer tiling capabilities, but Sway is designed specifically for Wayland, while Awesome is primarily an X11 window manager. This fundamental difference impacts their feature sets, performance characteristics, and compatibility with various applications and systems.