Pros of Sway

• More mature and stable project with a larger user base
• Better documentation and community support
• Closer adherence to i3 compatibility, making it easier for i3 users to transition

Cons of Sway

• Less customizable and flexible compared to Hyprland
• Slower development pace and fewer cutting-edge features
• Limited support for advanced compositing effects

Code Comparison

Sway configuration:

input "2:14:SynPS/2_Synaptics_TouchPad" {
    dwt enabled
    tap enabled
    natural_scroll enabled
    middle_emulation enabled
}

Hyprland configuration:

device:epic-mouse-v1 {
    sensitivity = -0.5
}

input {
    kb_layout = us
    kb_variant =
    kb_model =
    kb_options =
    kb_rules =
}

Both Sway and Hyprland use configuration files, but Hyprland's syntax is more concise and allows for more granular control over input devices and other settings. Sway's configuration closely resembles i3's, making it familiar to i3 users, while Hyprland introduces a new syntax that may require some adjustment but offers more flexibility.

Pros of i3

• Mature and stable project with a large user base and extensive documentation
• Lightweight and efficient, suitable for older hardware
• Highly customizable through a simple configuration file

Cons of i3

• Limited to tiling window management, lacking floating window support
• No native support for animations or advanced visual effects
• Less intuitive for users transitioning from traditional desktop environments

Code Comparison

i3 configuration example:

bar {
    status_command i3status
    position top
}

bindsym $mod+Return exec i3-sensible-terminal
bindsym $mod+Shift+q kill

Hyprland configuration example:

general {
    gaps_in = 5
    gaps_out = 20
    border_size = 2
    col.active_border = rgba(33ccffee) rgba(00ff99ee) 45deg
}

bind = $mainMod, Return, exec, $terminal
bind = $mainMod, Q, killactive,

Hyprland offers a more modern and visually appealing experience with built-in animations and effects. It supports both tiling and floating windows, making it more versatile than i3. However, i3 remains a popular choice for its stability, extensive documentation, and lightweight nature. Hyprland's configuration syntax is more intuitive and allows for easier customization of visual elements, while i3's configuration focuses on functionality and key bindings.

Pros of bspwm

• Lightweight and minimal resource usage
• Highly customizable through simple shell scripts
• Stable and well-established with a mature codebase

Cons of bspwm

• Lacks built-in compositor, requiring additional setup for visual effects
• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to more feature-rich environments
• Limited native support for modern hardware features (e.g., touchscreens)

Code Comparison

bspwm configuration example:

#! /bin/sh

bspc monitor -d I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

bspc config border_width         2
bspc config window_gap          12

bspc config split_ratio          0.52
bspc config borderless_monocle   true
bspc config gapless_monocle      true

Hyprland configuration example:

monitor=,preferred,auto,1

general {
    gaps_in = 5
    gaps_out = 20
    border_size = 2
    col.active_border = rgba(33ccffee) rgba(00ff99ee) 45deg
    col.inactive_border = rgba(595959aa)
}

Both window managers use configuration files to define behavior, but Hyprland's syntax is more ini-like, while bspwm uses shell scripts. Hyprland offers more built-in options for visual customization, while bspwm relies on external tools for similar effects.

Pros of picom

• Lightweight and versatile compositor for X11
• Supports a wide range of desktop environments and window managers
• Highly configurable with extensive options for visual effects

Cons of picom

• Limited to X11, not compatible with Wayland
• Can be complex to configure for optimal performance
• May introduce screen tearing or artifacts on some hardware

Code Comparison

Hyprland (Rust):

fn main() {
    let mut server = Server::new().expect("Couldn't create server");
    server.run().expect("Error running server");
}

picom (C):

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    session_t *ps = session_init(argc, argv);
    if (!ps) return 1;
    session_run(ps);
    session_destroy(ps);
    return 0;
}

Key Differences

• Hyprland is a complete Wayland compositor, while picom is an X11 compositor
• Hyprland is written in Rust, offering memory safety and modern language features
• picom focuses on window effects and transparency, while Hyprland provides a full desktop environment
• Hyprland has built-in tiling window management, whereas picom works alongside existing window managers

Pros of Rofi

• Lightweight and versatile application launcher
• Highly customizable with themes and scripts
• Well-established project with extensive documentation

Cons of Rofi

• Limited to window management tasks and application launching
• Less integrated with the overall desktop environment
• Requires more manual configuration for advanced features

Code Comparison

Rofi configuration example:

rofi -show run -modi run -location 1 -width 100 \
     -lines 2 -line-margin 0 -line-padding 1 \
     -separator-style none -font "mono 10" -columns 9 -bw 0 \
     -disable-history \
     -hide-scrollbar \
     -color-window "#222222, #222222, #b1b4b3" \
     -color-normal "#222222, #b1b4b3, #222222, #005577, #b1b4b3" \
     -color-active "#222222, #b1b4b3, #222222, #007763, #b1b4b3" \
     -color-urgent "#222222, #b1b4b3, #222222, #77003d, #b1b4b3" \
     -kb-row-select "Tab" -kb-row-tab ""

Hyprland configuration example:

monitor=,preferred,auto,auto

input {
    kb_layout = us
    kb_variant =
    kb_model =
    kb_options =
    kb_rules =

    follow_mouse = 1

    touchpad {
        natural_scroll = false
    }

    sensitivity = 0 # -1.0 - 1.0, 0 means no modification.
}

Pros of Polybar

• Highly customizable and flexible status bar
• Extensive module library for system information and application integration
• Works with various window managers and desktop environments

Cons of Polybar

• Requires more configuration and setup compared to built-in solutions
• May have compatibility issues with certain Wayland compositors
• Limited built-in support for dynamic workspaces

Code Comparison

Polybar configuration example:

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

Hyprland configuration example:

bar {
    position top
    status_command i3status
    colors {
        background #285577
        statusline #ffffff
    }
}

While Polybar is a standalone status bar application, Hyprland is a Wayland compositor that includes its own built-in bar functionality. Polybar offers more extensive customization options and a wider range of modules, making it suitable for use across different window managers. Hyprland's integrated bar is simpler to set up but may have fewer customization options out of the box. Polybar excels in X11 environments, while Hyprland's native Wayland support provides better integration with modern Wayland-based systems.