Pros of Sway

• More mature and feature-rich Wayland compositor
• Larger community and ecosystem support
• Extensive documentation and user guides

Cons of Sway

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Heavier resource usage compared to Labwc
• Less flexibility in window management paradigms

Code Comparison

Sway (written in C):

static void
view_update_outputs(struct sway_view *view, struct wlr_box *before) {
    if (!view->container || !view->surface) {
        return;
    }
    struct sway_container *container = view->container;
    struct wlr_box box;
    view_get_box(view, &box);
    struct sway_output *old_output = container->pending.output;
    struct sway_output *new_output = container_get_effective_output(container);
    // ... (additional logic)
}

Labwc (written in C):

static void
view_update_output(struct view *view)
{
    struct output *output;
    wl_list_for_each(output, &server.outputs, link) {
        if (wlr_output_layout_contains_point(server.output_layout,
                output->wlr_output, view->x, view->y)) {
            view->output = output;
            return;
        }
    }
}

Both projects use similar approaches for updating view outputs, but Sway's implementation appears more complex due to its more extensive feature set.

Pros of Hyprland

• Advanced compositing features with GPU acceleration
• Dynamic tiling and floating window management
• Extensive customization options through configuration files

Cons of Hyprland

• Higher system requirements due to GPU-intensive operations
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and usage
• Less stable compared to more established window managers

Code Comparison

Hyprland configuration example:

monitor=,preferred,auto,1

input {
    kb_layout = us
    follow_mouse = 1
}

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

Labwc configuration example:

<openbox_config>
  <theme>
    <name>Clearlooks</name>
  </theme>
  <desktops>
    <number>4</number>
    <names>
      <name>Desktop 1</name>
      <name>Desktop 2</name>
      <name>Desktop 3</name>
      <name>Desktop 4</name>
    </names>
  </desktops>
</openbox_config>

Summary

Hyprland offers advanced features and customization but requires more resources and expertise. Labwc provides a simpler, more traditional approach with lower system requirements and easier configuration. The choice between them depends on user preferences and system capabilities.

Pros of i3

• Mature and well-established project with a large user base and extensive documentation
• Highly customizable tiling window manager with a powerful scripting interface
• Supports multiple monitors and workspaces out of the box

Cons of i3

• Steep learning curve for new users due to its keyboard-centric approach
• Limited support for traditional desktop environments and graphical customization
• Requires manual configuration for many features that are automatic in other window managers

Code Comparison

i3 configuration example:

bar {
    status_command i3status
    position top
}

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

labwc configuration example:

<keyboard>
  <default>
    <keybind key="W-Return">
      <action name="Execute"><command>foot</command></action>
    </keybind>
    <keybind key="A-F4">
      <action name="Close"/>
    </keybind>
  </default>
</keyboard>

Both projects use configuration files, but i3 uses a custom syntax while labwc uses XML. i3's configuration is more concise, while labwc's XML structure may be more familiar to some users.

Pros of bspwm

• Highly customizable and lightweight tiling window manager
• Extensive scripting capabilities for advanced users
• Efficient keyboard-driven workflow

Cons of bspwm

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Requires manual configuration and setup
• Limited built-in features compared to full desktop environments

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

labwc configuration example:

<openbox_config>
  <theme>
    <name>Clearlooks</name>
  </theme>
  <desktops>
    <number>4</number>
    <names>
      <name>1</name>
      <name>2</name>
      <name>3</name>
      <name>4</name>
    </names>
  </desktops>
</openbox_config>

bspwm focuses on tiling window management with a minimalist approach, while labwc provides a more traditional stacking window manager experience with Openbox compatibility. bspwm offers greater flexibility for advanced users, but labwc may be more accessible for those familiar with traditional desktop environments.

Pros of herbstluftwm

• Manual tiling window manager with flexible layouts
• Highly customizable through configuration scripts
• Supports multiple monitors with independent workspaces

Cons of herbstluftwm

• Steeper learning curve due to manual tiling nature
• Less intuitive for users accustomed to traditional desktop environments
• Configuration requires scripting knowledge

Code Comparison

herbstluftwm configuration example:

hc keybind $Mod-Shift-q quit
hc keybind $Mod-Shift-r reload
hc keybind $Mod-w close
hc keybind $Mod-Return spawn ${TERMINAL:-xterm}

labwc configuration example:

<keyboard>
  <default>
    <keybind key="A-F4">
      <action name="Close"/>
    </keybind>
    <keybind key="W-Return">
      <action name="Execute">
        <command>alacritty</command>
      </action>
    </keybind>
  </default>
</keyboard>

herbstluftwm uses a bash-like syntax for configuration, while labwc uses XML. herbstluftwm's approach offers more flexibility but may be less intuitive for some users. labwc's XML configuration is more structured and potentially easier to read for those familiar with markup languages.

Pros of Rofi

• More mature project with a larger user base and extensive documentation
• Highly customizable with theming support and scripting capabilities
• Versatile application launcher, window switcher, and dmenu replacement

Cons of Rofi

• Focused solely on application launching and window switching
• Heavier resource usage compared to Labwc's lightweight approach
• More complex configuration and setup process

Code Comparison

Rofi configuration example:

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

Labwc configuration example:

<keyboard>
  <keybind key="W-r">
    <action name="Execute">
      <command>rofi -show run</command>
    </action>
  </keybind>
</keyboard>

While Rofi focuses on providing a flexible application launcher and window switcher, Labwc is a Wayland compositor that can integrate with Rofi for launching applications. Labwc's configuration is typically simpler, focusing on window management and keybindings, while Rofi offers more extensive customization options for its specific functions.