Pros of kitty

• Highly performant GPU-accelerated terminal emulator
• Extensive customization options and configuration flexibility
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, and Windows)

Cons of kitty

• Steeper learning curve for advanced features
• Larger resource footprint compared to minimal terminal emulators

Code comparison

kitty configuration example:

font_family      Fira Code
font_size        12.0
cursor_shape     beam
background_opacity 0.9

eww configuration example:

(defwindow example
  :monitor 0
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%"
                      :y "0%"
                      :width "100%"
                      :height "30px")
  :stacking "fg"
  :reserve (struts :distance "40px" :side "top")
  :windowtype "dock"
  :wm-ignore false
  "Hello, World!")

Summary

kitty is a feature-rich terminal emulator focused on performance and customization, while eww is a widget system for creating custom desktop components. They serve different purposes, with kitty being a terminal replacement and eww being a tool for creating custom UI elements. kitty offers more out-of-the-box functionality for terminal users, while eww provides greater flexibility for creating custom desktop widgets and interfaces.

Pros of Alacritty

• Highly performant GPU-accelerated terminal emulator
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows, BSD)
• Extensive configuration options for customization

Cons of Alacritty

• Limited to terminal emulation functionality
• Steeper learning curve for configuration (YAML-based)
• Lacks built-in window management features

Code Comparison

Alacritty configuration (YAML):

window:
  dimensions:
    columns: 80
    lines: 24
  padding:
    x: 2
    y: 2

Eww configuration (Yuck):

(defwindow example
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%"
                      :y "0%"
                      :width "100%"
                      :height "30px")
  :stacking "fg"
  (box :class "example-box"
       (label :text "Hello, Eww!")))

Summary

Alacritty is a fast, cross-platform terminal emulator with a focus on performance and customization. It excels in providing a smooth terminal experience but is limited to that specific functionality.

Eww, on the other hand, is a widget toolkit for creating custom desktop components. It offers more flexibility in terms of UI creation but may not match Alacritty's terminal performance.

The code comparison highlights the different configuration approaches: Alacritty uses YAML for terminal settings, while Eww employs a Lisp-like syntax for defining widgets and layouts.

Pros of Polybar

• More mature and stable project with a larger user base
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Simpler configuration using a single text file

Cons of Polybar

• Limited to X11 window system
• Less flexibility in widget customization
• Primarily designed for horizontal bars

Code Comparison

Polybar configuration example:

[bar/mybar]
modules-left = i3
modules-center = date
modules-right = cpu memory

Eww configuration example:

(defwindow mybar
  :monitor 0
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%"
                      :y "0%"
                      :width "100%"
                      :height "30px"
                      :anchor "top center")
  :stacking "bg"
  :reserve (struts :distance "40px" :side "top")
  :windowtype "dock"
  :wm-ignore false
  (box :class "mybar"
       (workspaces)
       (time)
       (systray)))

Eww offers more flexibility in widget design and layout, while Polybar provides a simpler configuration syntax. Eww supports both X11 and Wayland, making it more versatile for different desktop environments. However, Polybar has a larger user base and more extensive documentation, which can be beneficial for beginners or those seeking quick solutions.

Pros of Rofi

• Mature and well-established project with a large user base
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Lightweight and fast, with minimal resource usage

Cons of Rofi

• Limited customization options compared to Eww
• Primarily focused on application launching and window switching
• Less flexibility for creating complex UI elements

Code Comparison

Rofi configuration (rofi.config):

rofi.theme: /path/to/theme.rasi
rofi.modi: window,run,ssh
rofi.width: 50
rofi.lines: 15
rofi.columns: 1

Eww configuration (eww.yuck):

(defwindow example
  :monitor 0
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%" :y "0%" :width "100%" :height "30px")
  :stacking "fg"
  :reserve (struts :distance "40px" :side "top")
  :windowtype "dock"
  :wm-ignore false
  (bar))

Rofi is a versatile application launcher and window switcher, while Eww is a widget system for creating custom UI elements. Rofi excels in its primary functions but has limited customization options. Eww offers more flexibility for creating complex UI components but has a steeper learning curve and is less mature. The code comparison shows the difference in configuration approaches, with Rofi using a simple key-value format and Eww utilizing a more complex, lisp-like syntax for defining widgets and their properties.

Pros of picom

• Mature and widely-used X11 compositor with a focus on performance
• Supports advanced features like rounded corners, shadows, and blur effects
• Highly configurable through a dedicated configuration file

Cons of picom

• Limited to X11 environments, not compatible with Wayland
• Primarily focused on window compositing, lacking widget creation capabilities
• Less flexible for creating custom UI elements compared to eww

Code comparison

picom (C):

static void
paint_all_new(session_t *ps, int more_damage) {
    region_t region;
    int buffer_age = get_buffer_age(ps);
    pixman_region32_init(&region);
    get_damage(ps, &region, buffer_age, more_damage);
    paint_all(ps, &region);
    pixman_region32_fini(&region);
}

eww (Rust):

pub fn render(&self, ctx: &mut Context) -> Result<()> {
    let mut canvas = Canvas::new(ctx.size);
    for widget in &self.widgets {
        widget.render(&mut canvas)?;
    }
    ctx.set_paint(Paint::default());
    ctx.draw_image(&canvas.image, (0.0, 0.0), None);
    Ok(())
}

The code snippets demonstrate the different focus areas of the projects. picom's code deals with compositing and damage calculation, while eww's code is centered around widget rendering and UI composition.

Pros of Waybar

• Specifically designed for Wayland compositors, offering better integration
• Easier to configure with a JSON-based configuration file
• More stable and mature project with a larger user base

Cons of Waybar

• Less flexible and customizable compared to Eww's widget system
• Limited to bar-style layouts, while Eww can create various UI elements
• Primarily written in C++, which may be less accessible for some contributors

Code Comparison

Waybar configuration (JSON):

{
    "modules-left": ["sway/workspaces", "sway/mode"],
    "modules-center": ["clock"],
    "modules-right": ["battery", "network"]
}

Eww configuration (YUCK):

(defwindow bar
  :monitor 0
  :geometry (geometry :x "0%"
                      :y "0%"
                      :width "100%"
                      :height "30px"
                      :anchor "top center")
  :stacking "fg"
  :reserve (struts :distance "40px" :side "top")
  :windowtype "dock"
  :wm-ignore false
  (bar))

Both projects aim to create status bars for Linux environments, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Waybar is more focused on Wayland compositors and offers a simpler configuration, while Eww provides a more flexible and customizable widget system that can be used to create various UI elements beyond just status bars.