Pros of iosched

• Larger, more comprehensive project showcasing real-world app development
• Regularly updated with modern Android development practices
• Extensive documentation and architecture guidelines

Cons of iosched

• More complex codebase, potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Requires more setup and configuration to run
• Specific to Google I/O conference, less generalizable

Code Comparison

iosched (Kotlin):

@Composable
fun SessionItem(
    session: UserSession,
    modifier: Modifier = Modifier,
    showReservationStatus: Boolean = true,
    onSessionClick: (String) -> Unit = {},
    onStarClick: (String) -> Unit = {}
) {
    // ... (implementation details)
}

cheesesquare (Java):

public class CheeseDetailActivity extends AppCompatActivity {

    public static final String EXTRA_NAME = "cheese_name";

    @Override
    public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_detail);

        // ... (implementation details)
    }
}

The iosched project uses Kotlin and Jetpack Compose for modern UI development, while cheesesquare uses Java and traditional XML layouts. iosched demonstrates more advanced patterns and up-to-date Android practices, whereas cheesesquare focuses on showcasing specific Material Design components in a simpler context.

Pros of Plaid

• More comprehensive and feature-rich Android design showcase
• Actively maintained with regular updates and contributions
• Demonstrates advanced Material Design concepts and animations

Cons of Plaid

• Higher complexity, potentially steeper learning curve
• Larger codebase, which may be overwhelming for beginners
• Requires more setup and dependencies to run

Code Comparison

Plaid (Activity creation):

class HomeActivity : AppCompatActivity() {
    override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_home)
        // Complex setup and initialization
    }
}

Cheesesquare (Activity creation):

public class CheeseDetailActivity extends AppCompatActivity {
    @Override
    public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_detail);
        // Simpler setup and initialization
    }
}

Plaid offers a more modern, Kotlin-based approach with advanced features, while Cheesesquare provides a simpler Java implementation focused on basic Material Design concepts. Plaid's code tends to be more complex but showcases current best practices, whereas Cheesesquare's code is more straightforward and accessible for beginners.

Pros of architecture-samples

• Provides multiple architectural approaches (MVC, MVP, MVVM, etc.)
• Regularly updated with the latest Android development practices
• Includes comprehensive testing examples for each architecture

Cons of architecture-samples

• More complex and potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Requires more time to understand and implement in real-world projects
• May include unnecessary complexity for simpler apps

Code Comparison

architecture-samples (MVVM approach):

class TasksViewModel(
    private val tasksRepository: TasksRepository
) : ViewModel() {
    private val _items = MutableLiveData<List<Task>>().apply { value = emptyList() }
    val items: LiveData<List<Task>> = _items
}

cheesesquare (traditional approach):

public class CheeseListFragment extends Fragment {
    @Override
    public View onCreateView(LayoutInflater inflater, ViewGroup container, Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        RecyclerView rv = (RecyclerView) inflater.inflate(R.layout.fragment_cheese_list, container, false);
        setupRecyclerView(rv);
        return rv;
    }
}

The architecture-samples code demonstrates a ViewModel using Kotlin and LiveData, while cheesesquare uses a more traditional Fragment-based approach in Java. architecture-samples promotes separation of concerns and reactive programming, whereas cheesesquare focuses on simplicity and ease of understanding for beginners.

Pros of Sunflower

• More comprehensive and up-to-date Android development practices
• Demonstrates modern architecture components (ViewModel, LiveData, Room)
• Includes unit and instrumentation tests

Cons of Sunflower

• More complex codebase, potentially overwhelming for beginners
• Requires more setup and dependencies

Code Comparison

Sunflower (Kotlin):

class PlantDetailFragment : Fragment() {
    private val args: PlantDetailFragmentArgs by navArgs()
    private val plantDetailViewModel: PlantDetailViewModel by viewModels {
        InjectorUtils.providePlantDetailViewModelFactory(requireActivity(), args.plantId)
    }
}

Cheesesquare (Java):

public class CheeseDetailActivity extends AppCompatActivity {
    public static final String EXTRA_NAME = "cheese_name";

    @Override
    public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_detail);
    }
}

Sunflower uses Kotlin and demonstrates more modern Android development practices, including the use of Navigation component and ViewModel. Cheesesquare, being older, uses Java and a more traditional approach to Android development.

Sunflower is more comprehensive and showcases best practices, making it an excellent learning resource for intermediate to advanced developers. Cheesesquare, while simpler, may be more accessible for beginners but lacks modern architectural patterns.

Pros of compose-samples

• Showcases modern Android UI development using Jetpack Compose
• Provides a wide range of sample apps demonstrating various Compose features
• Regularly updated with the latest Compose best practices and patterns

Cons of compose-samples

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Compose
• May require more setup and configuration compared to traditional XML-based layouts
• Some samples might be too complex for beginners

Code Comparison

cheesesquare (XML-based layout):

<android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent">
    <android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout
        android:layout_width="match_parent"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content">
        <!-- ... -->
    </android.support.design.widget.AppBarLayout>
</android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout>

compose-samples (Jetpack Compose):

@Composable
fun MainScreen() {
    Scaffold(
        topBar = { TopAppBar(title = { Text("My App") }) },
        content = { paddingValues ->
            LazyColumn(contentPadding = paddingValues) {
                // List items
            }
        }
    )
}

Summary

While cheesesquare demonstrates traditional Android UI development using XML layouts and the Design Support Library, compose-samples showcases the modern approach using Jetpack Compose. The latter offers more flexibility and a declarative UI paradigm but may have a steeper learning curve for developers accustomed to XML-based layouts.

Pros of material-components-android

• Official Google repository with comprehensive Material Design components
• Regularly updated with new features and bug fixes
• Extensive documentation and integration guides

Cons of material-components-android

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex implementation
• May require more frequent updates to stay current with Material Design changes

Code Comparison

cheesesquare:

<android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent">
    <!-- Content -->
</android.support.design.widget.CoordinatorLayout>

material-components-android:

<androidx.coordinatorlayout.widget.CoordinatorLayout
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent">
    <!-- Content -->
</androidx.coordinatorlayout.widget.CoordinatorLayout>

Summary

material-components-android is the official Google repository for Material Design components, offering a comprehensive set of up-to-date UI elements with extensive documentation. However, it may require more frequent updates and have a steeper learning curve compared to cheesesquare.

cheesesquare, while not as extensive, provides a simpler implementation of Material Design components and may be suitable for smaller projects or those not requiring the latest Material Design features.

The code comparison shows that material-components-android uses AndroidX dependencies, while cheesesquare uses the older Android Support Library.