Pros of Aerial

• Offers a more comprehensive screensaver experience with dynamic video content
• Includes a wider range of customization options and settings
• Supports multiple displays and various video playback modes

Cons of Aerial

• Larger file size and resource usage due to video content
• Requires more frequent updates to maintain video sources and compatibility
• May have a steeper learning curve for users due to more complex features

Code Comparison

Wallpapper (Swift):

let image = NSImage(contentsOf: URL(fileURLWithPath: imagePath))
let properties = CGImageProperties(kCGImagePropertyOrientation: orientation)
let destination = CGImageDestination(url: outputFileUrl as CFURL, type: kUTTypeJPEG, imageCount: 1, options: nil)

Aerial (Objective-C):

NSImage *image = [[NSImage alloc] initWithContentsOfFile:imagePath];
NSDictionary *properties = @{(NSString *)kCGImagePropertyOrientation: @(orientation)};
CGImageDestinationRef destination = CGImageDestinationCreateWithURL((__bridge CFURLRef)outputFileURL, kUTTypeJPEG, 1, NULL);

Both projects use similar approaches for image handling, but Aerial's codebase is more extensive due to its broader feature set.

Pros of IINA

• More comprehensive media player with broader functionality
• Active development with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Larger community and user base for support and contributions

Cons of IINA

• Larger project scope, potentially more complex for new contributors
• Higher resource usage due to its full-featured nature
• Not specifically focused on wallpaper management

Code Comparison

IINA (Swift):

class PlayerCore: NSObject {
    static let playerCoreKey = Notification.Name("IINAPlayerCore")
    
    var mpv: MPVController!
    var info: PlaybackInfo!
}

Wallpapper (Swift):

struct Wallpapper {
    static func generate(inputPath: String, outputPath: String, options: Options) throws {
        let image = try WallpaperGenerator.generate(inputPath: inputPath, options: options)
        try image.write(to: URL(fileURLWithPath: outputPath))
    }
}

Summary

IINA is a full-featured media player for macOS, while Wallpapper is a tool for generating dynamic wallpapers. IINA offers a more comprehensive solution for media playback but may be overkill for users solely interested in wallpaper management. Wallpapper, on the other hand, is more focused and lightweight, specifically designed for creating dynamic wallpapers. The choice between the two depends on the user's specific needs and preferences.

Pros of Plash

• User-friendly GUI application for macOS, making it easier for non-technical users
• Supports live websites as wallpapers, offering dynamic and interactive backgrounds
• Includes features like auto-refresh and custom JavaScript injection for enhanced functionality

Cons of Plash

• Limited to macOS platform, reducing its accessibility for users on other operating systems
• Focuses primarily on web-based wallpapers, which may not suit users looking for static image options
• Requires the application to be running continuously for the wallpaper to remain active

Code Comparison

While a direct code comparison is not particularly relevant due to the different nature of these projects, we can highlight some key differences in their implementation:

Wallpapper (Swift):

let image = NSImage(contentsOf: URL(fileURLWithPath: imagePath))
let cgImage = image?.cgImage(forProposedRect: nil, context: nil, hints: nil)
let bitmapRep = NSBitmapImageRep(cgImage: cgImage!)

Plash (JavaScript/Electron):

const { BrowserWindow } = require('electron');
const win = new BrowserWindow({ fullscreen: true, frame: false });
win.loadURL(url);
win.setAlwaysOnTop(true, 'screen-saver');

These snippets illustrate the different approaches: Wallpapper manipulates image data directly, while Plash creates a fullscreen browser window to display web content as a wallpaper.

Pros of Lunar

• Offers advanced display management features beyond wallpaper settings
• Provides a user-friendly GUI for easier configuration
• Supports a wider range of display adjustments, including brightness and contrast

Cons of Lunar

• More complex setup and installation process
• Larger codebase and resource footprint
• May include features unnecessary for users only interested in wallpaper management

Code Comparison

Wallpapper (Swift):

let image = NSImage(contentsOfFile: imagePath)
let imageData = image?.tiffRepresentation
let bitmap = NSBitmapImageRep(data: imageData!)
let jpegData = bitmap?.representation(using: .jpeg, properties: [:])

Lunar (Swift):

func setBrightness(_ brightness: Double, for screen: Screen) {
    guard let display = screen.id else { return }
    DDC.setBrightness(Int(brightness), for: display)
    screen.brightness = brightness
}

While both projects are written in Swift, they serve different purposes. Wallpapper focuses on wallpaper generation and manipulation, whereas Lunar provides broader display management functionality. The code snippets reflect these differences, with Wallpapper handling image processing and Lunar managing display brightness settings.

Pros of Retroactive

• Broader functionality: Allows running legacy versions of various macOS apps, not just wallpaper creation
• User-friendly GUI: Provides a graphical interface for easier interaction
• Actively maintained: More recent updates and ongoing development

Cons of Retroactive

• Larger scope: May be overkill if only wallpaper functionality is needed
• macOS specific: Limited to Apple ecosystem, unlike Wallpapper's cross-platform nature
• More complex: Requires more system resources and setup due to its broader functionality

Code Comparison

While a direct code comparison is not particularly relevant due to the different scopes of these projects, we can highlight a key difference in their approach:

Wallpapper (Go):

func (w *Wallpapper) Generate() error {
    // Wallpaper generation logic
}

Retroactive (Swift):

func launchApplication(_ bundleIdentifier: String) {
    // Application launching logic
}

Wallpapper focuses on generating wallpapers, while Retroactive manages launching and running legacy applications. This fundamental difference in purpose is reflected in their codebases and overall project structures.

Pros of Equinox

• User-friendly GUI for creating dynamic wallpapers
• Supports both light and dark mode themes
• Offers a preview feature for created wallpapers

Cons of Equinox

• Limited to macOS platform
• Fewer customization options for image transitions
• Lacks command-line interface for automation

Code Comparison

Wallpapper (Swift):

let solarPosition = SolarPosition(forDate: date, atLatitude: latitude, andLongitude: longitude)
let altitude = solarPosition.altitude

Equinox (Swift):

let solarCalculator = SolarCalculator(latitude: latitude, longitude: longitude)
let solarPosition = solarCalculator.calculate(for: date)
let altitude = solarPosition.altitude

Both projects use similar approaches for calculating solar positions, but Equinox encapsulates the calculation in a separate SolarCalculator class, potentially offering better modularity.

Wallpapper provides a command-line tool for creating dynamic wallpapers, while Equinox offers a graphical user interface. Wallpapper supports more platforms and has more advanced customization options, but Equinox is more user-friendly for those who prefer a GUI. The choice between the two depends on the user's needs and preferences for creating dynamic wallpapers.