tweb

Pros of tdesktop

• Native desktop application with better performance and system integration
• More comprehensive feature set, including voice calls and secret chats
• Supports a wider range of platforms, including Windows, macOS, and Linux

Cons of tdesktop

• Larger codebase and more complex architecture
• Slower development cycle and release frequency
• Higher resource usage compared to web-based alternatives

Code Comparison

tweb (JavaScript):

export function getHeavyAnimationPromise() {
  return new Promise((resolve) => {
    window.requestAnimationFrame(() => {
      window.requestAnimationFrame(resolve);
    });
  });
}

tdesktop (C++):

QPixmap App::pixmapFromImageInPlace(QImage &&image) {
	return QPixmap::fromImage(std::move(image), Qt::ColorOnly);
}

The tweb repository is a web-based Telegram client written in JavaScript, while tdesktop is a native desktop application written in C++. tweb offers a lighter, more accessible solution that can run in any modern web browser, making it easier to deploy and update. However, tdesktop provides a more robust and feature-rich experience with better performance for desktop users.

tweb's codebase is generally more concise and easier to understand for web developers, while tdesktop's C++ code allows for deeper system integration and optimization. The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and target platform.

Pros of Webogram

• Longer development history and more established codebase
• Supports a wider range of legacy browsers and devices
• Simpler architecture, potentially easier for newcomers to understand

Cons of Webogram

• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• Older UI design that may feel less modern compared to Tweb
• Limited support for newer Telegram features

Code Comparison

Webogram (Angular.js):

$scope.openUser = function (userID) {
  $rootScope.$broadcast('history_focus', {
    peerString: AppUsersManager.getUserString(userID)
  });
};

Tweb (TypeScript):

public openUser(userId: UserId) {
  this.appUsersManager.openUser(userId).then(() => {
    this.appChatsManager.selectTab(0);
  });
}

Both projects aim to provide web-based Telegram clients, but Tweb is more modern and actively maintained. Webogram uses Angular.js, while Tweb is built with TypeScript and a custom framework. Tweb offers a more feature-rich experience with support for newer Telegram functionality, whereas Webogram may be more suitable for older devices or browsers. The code comparison shows differences in syntax and structure, reflecting the different technologies and approaches used in each project.

Pros of telegram-react

• Built with React, offering a familiar and widely-used framework for web developers
• Supports more platforms, including web browsers and desktop environments
• Potentially easier to contribute to for developers with React experience

Cons of telegram-react

• May have slower performance compared to tweb's custom framework
• Less optimized for mobile devices and touch interfaces
• Potentially larger bundle size due to React dependencies

Code Comparison

telegram-react:

const ChatInfo = ({ chatId, onClose }) => {
  const chat = useChatStore(chatId);
  return (
    <div className="chat-info">
      <h2>{chat.title}</h2>
      <button onClick={onClose}>Close</button>
    </div>
  );
};

tweb:

export class ChatInfo extends Component<{chatId: number}> {
  private chat = appChatsManager.getChat(this.props.chatId);
  
  public render() {
    return (
      <div class="chat-info">
        <h2>{this.chat.title}</h2>
        <Button onClick={this.close}>Close</Button>
      </div>
    );
  }
}

Both repositories aim to create web-based Telegram clients, but they differ in their approach and technology stack. tweb uses a custom framework optimized for performance and mobile devices, while telegram-react leverages the popular React ecosystem. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of telegram-tt

• More active development with frequent updates and commits
• Larger community with more contributors and forks
• Better documentation and project structure

Cons of telegram-tt

• Slightly larger codebase, potentially more complex to maintain
• Less focus on performance optimizations compared to tweb
• Fewer custom UI components, relying more on standard elements

Code Comparison

tweb:

export function wrapEmojiText(text: string) {
  return text.replace(/[\u{1f300}-\u{1f5ff}\u{1f900}-\u{1f9ff}\u{1f600}-\u{1f64f}\u{1f680}-\u{1f6ff}\u{2600}-\u{26ff}\u{2700}-\u{27bf}\u{1f1e6}-\u{1f1ff}\u{1f191}-\u{1f251}\u{1f004}\u{1f0cf}\u{1f170}-\u{1f171}\u{1f17e}-\u{1f17f}\u{1f18e}\u{3030}\u{2b50}\u{2b55}\u{2934}-\u{2935}\u{2b05}-\u{2b07}\u{2b1b}-\u{2b1c}\u{3297}\u{3299}\u{303d}\u{00a9}\u{00ae}\u{2122}\u{23f3}\u{24c2}\u{23e9}-\u{23ef}\u{25b6}\u{23f8}-\u{23fa}]/gu, (match) => {
    return `<emoji>${match}</emoji>`;
  });
}

telegram-tt:

function wrapEmoji(text) {
  return text.replace(/([\u2700-\u27BF]|[\uE000-\uF8FF]|\uD83C[\uDC00-\uDFFF]|\uD83D[\uDC00-\uDFFF]|[\u2011-\u26FF]|\uD83E[\uDD10-\uDDFF])/g, (match) => {
    return `<span class="emoji">${match}</span>`;
  });
}

Both projects implement emoji wrapping, but tweb uses TypeScript and custom tags, while telegram-tt uses JavaScript and spans with CSS classes.

Pros of TelegramSwift

• Native macOS and iOS app, providing better performance and integration with Apple platforms
• Written in Swift, offering type safety and modern language features
• Supports more platform-specific features and UI elements

Cons of TelegramSwift

• Limited to Apple platforms, reducing cross-platform compatibility
• Smaller community and potentially slower development compared to web-based alternatives
• May require more platform-specific knowledge for contributors

Code Comparison

TelegramSwift (Swift):

class ChatListController: GenericViewController<ChatListView> {
    private let context: AccountContext
    private let mode: ChatListControllerMode
    
    init(context: AccountContext, mode: ChatListControllerMode) {
        self.context = context
        self.mode = mode
        super.init(frame: .zero)
    }
}

tweb (TypeScript):

export default class AppChatListsContainer extends AppChatListContainer {
  constructor(
    public tabs: ChatlistSlice[],
    public onTabChange?: (index: number) => void
  ) {
    super({
      avatarSize: 54
    });
  }
}

The code snippets show different approaches to implementing chat list controllers. TelegramSwift uses Swift's class-based structure, while tweb utilizes TypeScript with a more web-oriented architecture. TelegramSwift's code is more focused on native app development, whereas tweb's code is tailored for web applications.