Pros of DeaDBeeF

• More extensive plugin system with a larger variety of available plugins
• Better support for a wider range of audio formats, including exotic and legacy formats
• More customizable user interface with themes and layouts

Cons of DeaDBeeF

• Less modern and polished user interface compared to musikcube
• Slower development cycle and less frequent updates
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily focused on Linux)

Code Comparison

Both projects are written in C/C++, but they have different approaches to their architecture. Here's a brief comparison of how they handle plugin loading:

DeaDBeeF:

void pluginloader_load_all(void) {
    char plugin_path[PATH_MAX];
    snprintf(plugin_path, sizeof(plugin_path), "%s/plugins", dbconfdir);
    load_plugins_from_dir(plugin_path);
}

musikcube:

void PluginFactory::LoadPlugins() {
    fs::path pluginPath = GetPluginDirectory();
    for (const auto& entry : fs::directory_iterator(pluginPath)) {
        LoadPlugin(entry.path());
    }
}

Both projects use a similar approach to loading plugins from a directory, but musikcube uses more modern C++ features and the filesystem library.

Pros of ncmpcpp

• More mature and established project with a larger user base
• Highly customizable with extensive configuration options
• Supports various music formats and playlist management features

Cons of ncmpcpp

• Steeper learning curve due to its text-based interface
• Limited to MPD (Music Player Daemon) as the backend
• May require additional setup and configuration for optimal use

Code Comparison

ncmpcpp

void Screen::update()
{
    if (m_window)
    {
        wresize(m_window, m_height, m_width);
        mvwin(m_window, m_start_y, m_start_x);
    }
}

musikcube

void Window::Resize(int width, int height) {
    this->width = width;
    this->height = height;
    this->OnResized(width, height);
}

Both projects use C++ for their core functionality. ncmpcpp focuses on a text-based interface using ncurses, while musikcube provides a more modern, cross-platform GUI experience. ncmpcpp is specifically designed for use with MPD, whereas musikcube is a standalone music player with its own audio engine.

ncmpcpp offers more advanced features for power users and music enthusiasts, while musikcube aims for a more user-friendly experience with a graphical interface. The choice between the two depends on personal preferences, desired features, and the user's comfort level with terminal-based applications.

Pros of cmus

• Lightweight and efficient, consuming minimal system resources
• Highly customizable with extensive keybindings and color schemes
• Supports a wide range of audio formats out of the box

Cons of cmus

• Text-based interface may be less intuitive for some users
• Limited visualization options compared to graphical music players
• Lacks built-in network streaming capabilities

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);
    track_info_unref(ti);
    return 0;
}

musikcube (C++):

void Player::Play(const std::string& uri) {
    this->Stop();
    this->SetPosition(0);
    this->playback->Play(uri);
    this->state = PlayerState::Playing;
}

Both projects implement play functionality, but musikcube's approach is more object-oriented and uses modern C++ features. cmus focuses on efficiency with its C implementation, while musikcube prioritizes readability and maintainability with its C++ code.

Pros of MPD

• More mature and widely adopted project with extensive documentation
• Supports a broader range of audio formats and protocols
• Highly flexible client-server architecture allowing for various front-ends

Cons of MPD

• Requires separate client software for user interaction
• Setup and configuration can be more complex for beginners
• Less focus on modern UI/UX compared to musikcube

Code Comparison

MPD (C++):

bool
playlist::AddSongToPlaylist(const char *playlist_name, const Song &song)
{
    const auto uri = song.GetURI();
    return AddURIToPlaylist(playlist_name, uri.c_str());
}

musikcube (C++):

bool
PlaybackService::Next() {
    return this->transport->Next();
}

Both projects use C++, but MPD's codebase is generally more complex due to its client-server architecture. musikcube's code tends to be more straightforward, reflecting its all-in-one design.

MPD offers greater flexibility and extensibility, while musikcube provides a more integrated and user-friendly experience out of the box. The choice between them depends on specific needs and preferences for audio playback management.

Pros of Tomahawk

• More comprehensive music discovery features, including integration with multiple streaming services
• Advanced social features allowing users to share and discover music with friends
• Cross-platform support for desktop and mobile devices

Cons of Tomahawk

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• More complex setup and configuration process
• Heavier resource usage due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

Tomahawk (C++):

void AudioEngine::setVolume( float volume )
{
    m_volume = volume;
    if ( m_audioOutput )
        m_audioOutput->setVolume( volume );
}

Musikcube (C++):

void Player::SetVolume(double volume) {
    this->volume = volume;
    this->output->SetVolume(volume);
}

Both projects use C++ for their core functionality. Tomahawk's codebase is more extensive due to its broader feature set, while Musikcube's code is generally more focused and streamlined. Musikcube's development is more active, with regular updates and improvements. Tomahawk offers a wider range of music sources and social features, but Musikcube provides a more lightweight and efficient music player experience with a clean, modern interface.