Pros of basic-pitch

• Developed and maintained by Spotify, likely ensuring high-quality and up-to-date functionality
• Focuses on audio analysis and pitch detection, offering more advanced music-related features
• Provides a Python library for easy integration into other projects

Cons of basic-pitch

• More complex to set up and use, requiring Python knowledge and dependencies
• Limited to audio analysis tasks, not providing direct Spotify playback control
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with audio processing

Code Comparison

basic-pitch:

from basic_pitch.inference import predict
from basic_pitch import ICASSP_2022_MODEL_PATH

model_output, midi_data, note_events = predict(audio_path)

shpotify:

spotify play uri spotify:track:3AhXZa8sUQht0UEdBJgpGc
spotify vol up
spotify status

Summary

basic-pitch is a specialized tool for audio analysis and pitch detection, developed by Spotify. It offers advanced features for music-related tasks but requires more technical knowledge to use. shpotify, on the other hand, is a simple command-line interface for controlling Spotify playback on macOS, making it more accessible for general users but with limited functionality compared to basic-pitch's audio analysis capabilities.

Pros of SpotifyAPI-NET

• More comprehensive API coverage, allowing for a wider range of Spotify functionality
• Better suited for larger, more complex applications due to its robust feature set
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of SpotifyAPI-NET

• Steeper learning curve due to its more extensive API
• Potentially overkill for simple Spotify integrations or command-line tools
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to shpotify

Code Comparison

shpotify (Shell):

#!/bin/bash
SPOTIFY_COMMAND="tell application \"Spotify\" to $1"
osascript -e "$SPOTIFY_COMMAND"

SpotifyAPI-NET (C#):

var spotify = new SpotifyClient(config);
var track = await spotify.Tracks.Get("trackId");
await spotify.Player.AddToQueue(new PlayerAddToQueueRequest(track.Uri));

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in complexity and functionality between the two libraries. shpotify uses simple shell commands for basic Spotify control, while SpotifyAPI-NET offers more advanced features and integration with the Spotify Web API.

Pros of librespot

• Full-featured Spotify client library written in Rust
• Supports audio playback and device control
• Can be used to build custom Spotify clients or integrate Spotify into other applications

Cons of librespot

• More complex to set up and use
• Requires Rust knowledge and compilation
• May have higher resource usage due to full client implementation

Code comparison

librespot:

let session = Session::connect(config, credentials).await?;
let (player, _) = Player::new(config, session.clone(), None, move || {
    Box::new(audio_backend::find(None).unwrap())
});
player.load(SpotifyId::from_base62("spotify:track:..."), true, 0);
player.play();

shpotify:

osascript -e 'tell application "Spotify" to play track "spotify:track:..."'

Summary

librespot is a comprehensive Spotify client library offering more features and flexibility, but requires more setup and Rust knowledge. shpotify is a simpler shell script for basic Spotify control on macOS, easier to use but with limited functionality. Choose based on your needs and technical expertise.

Pros of spotify-tui

• Full-featured terminal user interface with a modern, visually appealing design
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• More extensive functionality, including playlist management and search capabilities

Cons of spotify-tui

• Requires Rust installation and compilation
• More complex setup process compared to shpotify's simple shell script
• Larger resource footprint due to its comprehensive feature set

Code Comparison

spotify-tui (Rust):

let spotify = Spotify::default()
    .client_credentials_manager(client_credentials_manager)
    .build();
let tracks = spotify.playlist_tracks(playlist_id, None, None).await?;

shpotify (Shell):

osascript -e "tell application \"Spotify\" to play track \"$SPOTIFY_TRACK_URI\""

spotify-tui offers a more robust API interaction, while shpotify relies on AppleScript for macOS-specific control.

Pros of Spotifyd

• Runs as a daemon, providing a lightweight Spotify client
• Supports multiple output devices and formats
• Can be controlled remotely via the official Spotify app

Cons of Spotifyd

• Requires Rust programming environment for compilation
• More complex setup process compared to shpotify
• Limited to Spotify Premium accounts

Code Comparison

Spotifyd (Rust):

let (player, _) = Player::new(
    Box::new(audio_backend),
    Box::new(mixer),
    Box::new(cache),
    config.clone(),
    credentials,
    handle.clone(),
    player_event_channel,
    api_key_manager,
)?;

shpotify (Shell):

osascript -e "tell application \"Spotify\" to play track \"$SPOTIFY_TRACK_URI\""

Summary

Spotifyd is a more feature-rich Spotify client that runs as a daemon, offering better integration with the Spotify ecosystem. However, it has a steeper learning curve and is limited to Premium accounts. shpotify, on the other hand, is a simpler shell script that provides basic control over the Spotify desktop application, making it easier to use but with fewer features.