Pros of gdu

• Faster performance, especially for large directories
• Supports more platforms including Windows and FreeBSD
• Offers a more traditional file explorer interface

Cons of gdu

• Less visually appealing interface compared to diskonaut's unique visualization
• Lacks some advanced features like real-time updates during file deletions

Code Comparison

gdu (Go):

func (a *App) askBeforeDelete(item *File, multiple bool) bool {
    var msg string
    if multiple {
        msg = fmt.Sprintf("Are you sure you want to delete %d items?", len(a.selected))
    } else {
        msg = fmt.Sprintf("Are you sure you want to delete %s?", item.Name)
    }
    return a.ui.Confirm(msg, "No", "Yes")
}

diskonaut (Rust):

fn delete_selected_files(&mut self) -> Result<()> {
    let files_to_delete: Vec<_> = self
        .selected_files
        .iter()
        .map(|selected_file| selected_file.path.clone())
        .collect();
    for file in files_to_delete {
        std::fs::remove_file(&file)?;
    }
    Ok(())
}

Both projects aim to provide disk usage analysis tools, but gdu focuses on speed and broad platform support, while diskonaut offers a unique visual representation of disk usage. gdu's interface is more traditional, while diskonaut provides an interactive treemap visualization.

Pros of duf

• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows, *BSD)
• Colorful and user-friendly output with various themes
• Supports multiple units (binary/decimal) and grouping options

Cons of duf

• Lacks interactive visualization capabilities
• Does not provide detailed file-level analysis
• Limited customization options for output format

Code Comparison

duf:

func (d *Device) UsedPercent() float64 {
    if d.Total == 0 {
        return 0
    }
    return float64(d.Used) / float64(d.Total) * 100.0
}

diskonaut:

pub fn get_percentage_string(percentage: f64) -> String {
    format!("{:.1}%", percentage.min(100.0))
}

Summary

duf is a disk usage utility that provides a colorful and user-friendly output across multiple platforms. It offers various themes and unit options but lacks interactive visualization and detailed file-level analysis.

diskonaut, on the other hand, focuses on interactive disk space visualization and navigation, allowing users to explore and analyze disk usage at a more granular level. However, it may have limited cross-platform support compared to duf.

Both tools serve different purposes: duf for quick disk usage overview, and diskonaut for in-depth disk space analysis and cleanup.

Pros of dust

• Written in Rust, potentially offering better performance and memory safety
• Provides a simple command-line interface for quick disk usage analysis
• Supports multiple sorting options and file type filtering

Cons of dust

• Less visually appealing compared to diskonaut's interactive interface
• Lacks the ability to delete files directly from the interface
• May not be as intuitive for users who prefer graphical representations

Code comparison

diskonaut:

fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let args = cli::get_cli_args();
    let path = args.path.unwrap_or_else(|| std::env::current_dir().unwrap());
    let mut app = app::App::new(path, args.apparent_size, args.reverse_delete)?;
    app.run()?;
    Ok(())
}

dust:

fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let opt = Opt::from_args();
    let mut app = App::new(&opt);
    app.run()?;
    Ok(())
}

Both projects use Rust and have similar main function structures, but diskonaut's code suggests a more complex initialization process with additional parameters.

Pros of dua-cli

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory efficiency
• Provides a command-line interface, making it easier to integrate into scripts and automation
• Offers a more detailed breakdown of disk usage, including file counts and percentages

Cons of dua-cli

• Less visually appealing interface compared to diskonaut's interactive UI
• Lacks the ability to delete files directly from the interface
• May be less intuitive for users who prefer graphical representations

Code Comparison

diskonaut:

fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
    let args: Vec<String> = env::args().collect();
    let path = args.get(1).map(|s| s.as_str()).unwrap_or(".");
    let mut app = App::new(path)?;
    app.run()?;
    Ok(())
}

dua-cli:

fn main() -> Result<()> {
    let opt: Opt = Opt::from_args();
    let mut app = App::new(opt.input, opt.threads)?;
    app.run()?;
    Ok(())
}

Both projects use similar main function structures, but dua-cli incorporates command-line argument parsing using a custom Opt struct, while diskonaut uses a simpler approach with direct argument access.

Pros of ytop

• Real-time system monitoring with CPU, memory, disk, and network usage
• Customizable interface with different color schemes and layouts
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows)

Cons of ytop

• Lacks disk space visualization capabilities
• No interactive file/directory management features
• Less focused on disk usage analysis compared to diskonaut

Code Comparison

ytop (Rust):

pub fn draw<B: Backend>(&mut self, f: &mut Frame<B>) {
    let chunks = Layout::default()
        .direction(Direction::Vertical)
        .constraints([Constraint::Percentage(50), Constraint::Percentage(50)].as_ref())
        .split(f.size());
    self.draw_cpu(f, chunks[0]);
    self.draw_mem(f, chunks[1]);
}

diskonaut (Rust):

fn draw<B: Backend>(&mut self, f: &mut Frame<B>) {
    let chunks = Layout::default()
        .direction(Direction::Vertical)
        .constraints([Constraint::Percentage(100)].as_ref())
        .split(f.size());
    self.draw_disk_usage(f, chunks[0]);
}

Both projects use Rust and the tui-rs library for terminal-based user interfaces. ytop focuses on overall system monitoring, while diskonaut specializes in disk usage visualization and management. ytop offers a more comprehensive system overview, but diskonaut provides deeper insights into disk space utilization.