Pros of tdesktop

• Native desktop application with better performance and system integration
• Supports more features of the Telegram platform, including voice calls and secret chats
• Larger and more active development community, resulting in frequent updates and improvements

Cons of tdesktop

• Steeper learning curve for contributors due to C++ codebase
• Larger codebase and more complex architecture compared to the React-based alternative
• Requires compilation for different platforms, which can be more time-consuming

Code Comparison

telegram-react (JavaScript/React):

const ChatInfo = ({ chatId, onClose }) => {
  const chat = useChatStore(chatId);
  return (
    <div className="chat-info">
      <ChatAvatar chat={chat} />
      <ChatTitle chat={chat} />
      <CloseButton onClick={onClose} />
    </div>
  );
};

tdesktop (C++):

void ChatInfoBox::prepare() {
    auto chat = _peer->asChat();
    setTitle(tr::lng_info_group_title());
    addButton(tr::lng_close(), [this] { closeBox(); });
    setupContent();
}

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in language and approach between the two projects. telegram-react uses a functional component with React hooks, while tdesktop employs C++ classes and methods for UI construction.

Pros of Webogram

• Longer development history and more mature codebase
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions
• Implements more Telegram features and has better compatibility with the official clients

Cons of Webogram

• Uses older technologies (AngularJS) which may be harder to maintain
• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• May have performance issues with large chats or media-heavy conversations

Code Comparison

Webogram (AngularJS):

$scope.showPeerInfo = function () {
  if ($scope.curDialog.peerID > 0) {
    $rootScope.$broadcast('userInfo.toggle', $scope.curDialog.peerID);
  } else if ($scope.curDialog.peerID < 0) {
    $rootScope.$broadcast('channelInfo.toggle', -$scope.curDialog.peerID);
  }
};

Telegram-react (React):

showChatInfo = () => {
    const { chatId } = this.props;
    const chat = ChatStore.get(chatId);
    if (!chat) return;

    openChatDetails(chat);
};

The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches and technologies used in each project. Webogram uses AngularJS with scopes and broadcasts, while Telegram-react utilizes React components and stores.

Pros of Telegram

• Native Android application, providing better performance and integration with the device
• More mature and feature-complete, as it's the official Telegram client for Android
• Larger user base and more frequent updates

Cons of Telegram

• Limited to Android platform, unlike the cross-platform nature of telegram-react
• Closed-source, making it difficult for community contributions and audits
• Potentially slower adoption of new features compared to the more flexible web-based approach

Code Comparison

telegram-react (JavaScript):

const handleMessage = (message) => {
  if (message.content.type === 'text') {
    renderTextMessage(message.content.text);
  } else if (message.content.type === 'photo') {
    renderPhotoMessage(message.content.photo);
  }
};

Telegram (Java):

private void processMessage(TLRPC.Message message) {
    if (message.message != null) {
        processTextMessage(message);
    } else if (message.media instanceof TLRPC.TL_messageMediaPhoto) {
        processPhotoMessage(message);
    }
}

The code snippets show similar message handling logic, but with language-specific implementations. telegram-react uses JavaScript with a more functional approach, while Telegram uses Java with object-oriented patterns.

Pros of TelegramSwift

• Native iOS development using Swift, providing better performance and integration with iOS ecosystem
• Specifically tailored for iOS devices, offering a more polished user experience
• Utilizes Swift's strong typing and safety features, potentially reducing runtime errors

Cons of TelegramSwift

• Limited to iOS platform, lacking cross-platform compatibility
• Smaller community and potentially slower development cycle compared to React-based projects
• May require more specialized knowledge in Swift and iOS development

Code Comparison

TelegramSwift (Swift):

class TelegramViewController: UIViewController {
    override func viewDidLoad() {
        super.viewDidLoad()
        setupUI()
    }
}

telegram-react (JavaScript/React):

class TelegramComponent extends React.Component {
  componentDidMount() {
    this.setupUI();
  }
  render() {
    return <div>Telegram UI</div>;
  }
}

The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches in iOS native development versus React-based web development. TelegramSwift uses UIKit and Swift's object-oriented paradigm, while telegram-react utilizes React's component-based structure and JavaScript syntax.

Pros of Unigram

• Built with UWP (Universal Windows Platform), offering better integration with Windows features
• More active development and frequent updates
• Supports a wider range of Windows devices, including Xbox and HoloLens

Cons of Unigram

• Limited to Windows platforms, reducing cross-platform compatibility
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with UWP

Code Comparison

Unigram (C#):

public sealed partial class DialogPage : Page
{
    public DialogViewModel ViewModel => DataContext as DialogViewModel;
    
    public DialogPage()
    {
        InitializeComponent();
    }
}

Telegram-react (JavaScript):

class DialogDetails extends React.Component {
    constructor(props) {
        super(props);
        this.state = {
            prevChatId: 0
        };
    }
}

The code snippets showcase the different approaches:

• Unigram uses C# and UWP-specific patterns
• Telegram-react employs JavaScript and React components

Unigram's UWP focus allows for tighter Windows integration but limits its reach. Telegram-react offers broader platform support through web technologies but may lack some native features. Both projects aim to provide a Telegram client experience, with Unigram specializing in Windows and Telegram-react offering a more platform-agnostic solution.