Pros of windows-rs

• Written in Rust, providing memory safety and modern language features
• Easier to use for Rust developers already familiar with the ecosystem
• More idiomatic Rust code and better integration with Rust tooling

Cons of windows-rs

• Less mature and potentially less stable than C++/WinRT
• May have limited support for some advanced Windows API features
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to C++/WinRT

Code Comparison

cppwinrt:

#include <winrt/Windows.Foundation.h>
using namespace winrt::Windows::Foundation;

IAsyncAction DoWorkAsync()
{
    co_await 1s;
    co_return;
}

windows-rs:

use windows::Foundation::IAsyncAction;

fn do_work_async() -> IAsyncAction {
    async_block! {
        sleep(Duration::from_secs(1)).await;
    }
}

Both examples demonstrate asynchronous programming, but windows-rs uses Rust's async/await syntax, while cppwinrt uses C++20 coroutines. The windows-rs code is more idiomatic Rust, while cppwinrt follows C++ conventions.

Pros of WIL

• Broader scope, offering utilities for various Windows development scenarios
• Easier integration with existing codebases, as it's header-only
• More flexible, with less opinionated abstractions

Cons of WIL

• Less focused on modern C++ idioms compared to C++/WinRT
• May require more manual management of resources and COM interfaces
• Potentially steeper learning curve due to its wider range of features

Code Comparison

WIL:

#include <wil/resource.h>

wil::unique_handle fileHandle = CreateFile(...);
THROW_IF_HANDLE_INVALID(fileHandle);

C++/WinRT:

#include <winrt/Windows.Storage.h>

auto file = co_await StorageFile::GetFileFromPathAsync(L"path");

Summary

WIL provides a broader set of utilities for Windows development, while C++/WinRT focuses on modernizing Windows Runtime APIs. WIL is more flexible and easier to integrate into existing projects, but C++/WinRT offers a more cohesive and modern C++ experience for working with Windows APIs. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the developer's familiarity with modern C++ concepts.

Pros of DirectXShaderCompiler

• Specialized for shader compilation, offering advanced optimization techniques
• Supports multiple shader models and DirectX versions
• Provides a robust command-line interface for integration into build pipelines

Cons of DirectXShaderCompiler

• Limited to DirectX shader compilation, less versatile than CppWinRT
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with shader programming
• Larger repository size and potentially longer build times

Code Comparison

DirectXShaderCompiler:

float4 PSMain(float4 position : SV_POSITION) : SV_TARGET
{
    return float4(1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0);
}

CppWinRT:

struct App : implements<App, IFrameworkViewSource, IFrameworkView>
{
    IFrameworkView CreateView() { return *this; }
    void Initialize(CoreApplicationView const&) {}
};

Summary

DirectXShaderCompiler is a specialized tool for DirectX shader compilation, offering advanced optimization and support for various shader models. It's ideal for graphics programming but has a narrower focus compared to CppWinRT. CppWinRT, on the other hand, provides a more general-purpose solution for Windows Runtime development, offering broader applicability across different types of Windows applications. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project, with DirectXShaderCompiler being more suitable for graphics-intensive applications and CppWinRT for general Windows app development.

Pros of vcpkg

• Broader scope: Manages dependencies for multiple languages and platforms, not just C++/WinRT
• Larger ecosystem: Supports a vast array of libraries and packages
• Cross-platform: Works on Windows, Linux, and macOS

Cons of vcpkg

• More complex setup: Requires additional configuration compared to CppWinRT
• Potential overhead: May include unnecessary dependencies for simple projects
• Learning curve: Steeper for developers unfamiliar with package management systems

Code Comparison

vcpkg:

vcpkg install boost:x64-windows
vcpkg integrate install

CppWinRT:

#include <winrt/Windows.Foundation.h>
using namespace winrt::Windows::Foundation;

Summary

vcpkg is a versatile package manager for C++ libraries, offering a wide range of dependencies across multiple platforms. It provides more flexibility but may require additional setup and learning. CppWinRT, on the other hand, is specifically designed for Windows Runtime APIs, offering a more streamlined experience for Windows development but with a narrower focus.

Pros of Terminal

• More user-facing application, providing a modern terminal experience for Windows users
• Extensive customization options, including themes, key bindings, and profiles
• Active community with frequent updates and feature additions

Cons of Terminal

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex for contributors
• Focused on Windows platform, limiting cross-platform compatibility
• May require more system resources compared to simpler terminal emulators

Code Comparison

Terminal (C++):

void TerminalPage::_HandleOpenNewTabDropdown(const IInspectable& /*sender*/, const ActionEventArgs& args)
{
    _OpenNewTab(std::nullopt);
}

CppWinRT (C++/WinRT):

IAsyncAction MainPage::ButtonClickHandler(IInspectable const&, RoutedEventArgs const&)
{
    co_await _viewModel.DoSomethingAsync();
}

Key Differences

• Terminal is a full-fledged application, while CppWinRT is a language projection for Windows Runtime APIs
• Terminal focuses on user experience and customization, whereas CppWinRT aims to simplify Windows API development
• CppWinRT has broader applicability across Windows development, while Terminal is specific to command-line interfaces

Use Cases

• Choose Terminal for a modern, customizable Windows terminal experience
• Opt for CppWinRT when developing Windows applications with modern C++ and requiring Windows Runtime API access