Pros of electron-react-boilerplate

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Includes additional features like auto-updates and packaging scripts

Cons of electron-react-boilerplate

• Uses older build tools (webpack) which can be slower
• More complex setup and configuration
• Larger bundle size due to included features

Code Comparison

electron-react-boilerplate:

import { app, BrowserWindow, shell, ipcMain } from 'electron';
import { autoUpdater } from 'electron-updater';
import log from 'electron-log';
import MenuBuilder from './menu';
import { resolveHtmlPath } from './util';

electron-vite-react:

import { app, BrowserWindow, shell, ipcMain } from 'electron'
import { release } from 'node:os'
import { join } from 'node:path'
import { update } from './update'

The electron-react-boilerplate code includes more imports for additional features, while electron-vite-react has a more streamlined approach. The electron-vite-react project uses Vite as its build tool, which offers faster build times and a simpler configuration. It also has a smaller footprint and focuses on providing a minimal, modern setup for Electron and React development.

Both projects serve as excellent starting points for Electron and React applications, with electron-react-boilerplate offering more features out of the box, and electron-vite-react providing a leaner, more modern development experience.

Pros of vite-electron-builder

• More comprehensive out-of-the-box setup, including TypeScript, ESLint, and Prettier configurations
• Includes a pre-configured GitHub Actions workflow for automated builds and releases
• Supports hot module replacement (HMR) for both main and renderer processes

Cons of vite-electron-builder

• Slightly more complex project structure, which may be overwhelming for beginners
• Less frequently updated compared to electron-vite-react
• Requires more initial configuration and setup time

Code Comparison

electron-vite-react:

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron'
import path from 'node:path'

const createWindow = () => {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({
    // ... window configuration
  })
}

vite-electron-builder:

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron'
import { join } from 'path'
import { URL } from 'url'

async function createWindow() {
  const browserWindow = new BrowserWindow({
    // ... window configuration
  })
}

Both projects use similar approaches for creating the main window, but vite-electron-builder uses TypeScript and includes additional imports for path and URL handling.

Pros of vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder

• Seamless integration with Vue CLI, providing a familiar development environment for Vue developers
• Extensive documentation and community support, making it easier for beginners to get started
• Built-in support for TypeScript and various build configurations

Cons of vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder

• Slower build times compared to electron-vite-react, especially for larger projects
• Less flexibility in customizing the build process, as it's more tightly coupled with Vue CLI
• Potentially larger bundle sizes due to the inclusion of Vue CLI dependencies

Code Comparison

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

module.exports = {
  pluginOptions: {
    electronBuilder: {
      builderOptions: {
        // Configure electron-builder options here
      }
    }
  }
}

electron-vite-react:

import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
import electron from 'vite-plugin-electron'

export default defineConfig({
  plugins: [electron()]
})

The code comparison shows that vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder uses a Vue CLI configuration file, while electron-vite-react uses Vite's configuration system. This reflects the different build tools and ecosystems each project is based on.

electron-vite-react offers a more streamlined configuration process, leveraging Vite's simplicity and performance benefits. In contrast, vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder provides a more comprehensive set of options within the Vue CLI ecosystem, which may be preferable for developers already familiar with Vue CLI projects.

Pros of minimal-repro

• Simpler setup, ideal for quick issue reproduction
• Lightweight, with minimal dependencies
• Easier to understand for beginners due to its bare-bones structure

Cons of minimal-repro

• Lacks advanced development features and optimizations
• Requires more manual configuration for complex projects
• No built-in support for modern web technologies like React

Code Comparison

minimal-repro:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron')

function createWindow () {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

electron-vite-react:

import { app, BrowserWindow, shell, ipcMain } from 'electron'
import { release } from 'node:os'
import { join } from 'node:path'

const createWindow = () => {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({
    width: 920,
    height: 840,
    webPreferences: {
      preload: join(__dirname, '../preload/index.js'),
      sandbox: false
    },
  })
}

The minimal-repro code is more straightforward, focusing on the basic window creation. In contrast, electron-vite-react includes additional imports and configuration options, reflecting its more feature-rich environment. The electron-vite-react setup is geared towards a React-based project with Vite as the build tool, offering a more comprehensive development experience but with added complexity.

Pros of Electron Forge

• More mature and widely adopted in the Electron ecosystem
• Offers a comprehensive set of tools for packaging, publishing, and automating Electron app development
• Provides better integration with native dependencies and system-level features

Cons of Electron Forge

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Electron
• Less flexibility in customizing the build process compared to Vite-based solutions
• Slower build times, especially for larger projects

Code Comparison

Electron Forge (package.json):

{
  "scripts": {
    "start": "electron-forge start",
    "package": "electron-forge package",
    "make": "electron-forge make"
  }
}

Electron Vite React (package.json):

{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "vite",
    "build": "vite build && electron-builder",
    "preview": "vite preview"
  }
}

The code comparison shows that Electron Forge uses its own CLI commands for starting, packaging, and building the app, while Electron Vite React leverages Vite's commands for development and preview, with electron-builder for the final build process. This highlights the more integrated approach of Electron Forge versus the modular, Vite-centric approach of Electron Vite React.

Pros of Tauri

• Smaller application size due to native system components
• Better performance and resource efficiency
• Cross-platform development with a single codebase

Cons of Tauri

• Less mature ecosystem compared to Electron
• Limited access to certain native APIs
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Rust

Code Comparison

Tauri (main.rs):

#![cfg_attr(
  all(not(debug_assertions), target_os = "windows"),
  windows_subsystem = "windows"
)]

fn main() {
  tauri::Builder::default()
    .run(tauri::generate_context!())
    .expect("error while running tauri application");
}

Electron Vite React (main.ts):

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron'
import path from 'node:path'

const createWindow = () => {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({
    webPreferences: {
      preload: path.join(__dirname, 'preload.js')
    }
  })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

app.whenReady().then(() => {
  createWindow()
})

Both frameworks offer solutions for building desktop applications using web technologies, but Tauri focuses on using native system components and Rust for the backend, while Electron Vite React uses Electron with a React frontend and Vite as the build tool.