Pros of WebRTC Samples

• Official repository maintained by the WebRTC project, ensuring up-to-date and standard-compliant examples
• Comprehensive collection of samples covering various WebRTC features and use cases
• Well-documented code with clear explanations and comments

Cons of WebRTC Samples

• Focuses primarily on individual features, lacking full-fledged application examples
• May be more complex for beginners compared to WebRTC-Experiment's simplified approach
• Less emphasis on cross-browser compatibility and polyfills

Code Comparison

WebRTC Samples:

const peerConnection = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
peerConnection.addEventListener('icecandidate', event => {
  if (event.candidate) {
    signalingChannel.send({'candidate': event.candidate});
  }
});

WebRTC-Experiment:

connection.openOrJoin('room-id');
connection.onstream = function(event) {
    document.body.appendChild(event.mediaElement);
};

WebRTC Samples provides more granular control over the WebRTC setup, while WebRTC-Experiment offers a higher-level abstraction for quicker implementation. The WebRTC Samples code demonstrates low-level event handling, whereas WebRTC-Experiment simplifies the process with a more user-friendly API.

Pros of PeerJS

• Simpler API and easier to use for beginners
• Better documentation and examples
• More active development and community support

Cons of PeerJS

• Less flexible and customizable than WebRTC-Experiment
• Requires a server for signaling, which may introduce latency
• Limited support for advanced WebRTC features

Code Comparison

WebRTC-Experiment:

connection = new RTCMultiConnection();
connection.socketURL = 'https://rtcmulticonnection.herokuapp.com:443/';
connection.session = {
    audio: true,
    video: true
};
connection.openOrJoin('room-id');

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer();
const conn = peer.connect('peer-id');
conn.on('open', () => {
    conn.send('Hello!');
});

Summary

PeerJS offers a more user-friendly approach to WebRTC, making it easier for beginners to implement peer-to-peer connections. However, WebRTC-Experiment provides more flexibility and advanced features for developers who need fine-grained control over their WebRTC implementations. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your level of expertise with WebRTC technologies.

Pros of simple-peer

• Simpler API and easier to use for basic WebRTC connections
• Better documentation and examples for quick implementation
• Actively maintained with more recent updates

Cons of simple-peer

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to WebRTC-Experiment
• Fewer advanced options for customizing WebRTC behavior
• Limited support for more complex use cases like multi-party connections

Code Comparison

simple-peer:

const peer = new SimplePeer({ initiator: true })
peer.on('signal', data => {
  // send signal data to peer
})
peer.on('connect', () => {
  peer.send('hello')
})

WebRTC-Experiment:

var connection = new RTCMultiConnection();
connection.socketURL = 'https://rtcmulticonnection.herokuapp.com:443/';
connection.session = {
    audio: true,
    video: true
};
connection.openOrJoin('room-id');

Summary

simple-peer offers a more straightforward approach for basic WebRTC connections, making it ideal for simpler projects. WebRTC-Experiment provides a more comprehensive set of features and options, suitable for complex applications requiring advanced WebRTC functionality. Choose based on your project's specific requirements and complexity.

Pros of Jitsi Meet

• More comprehensive and feature-rich video conferencing solution
• Active development with frequent updates and community support
• Scalable for large-scale deployments and enterprise use

Cons of Jitsi Meet

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Requires more server resources for deployment
• May be overkill for simple WebRTC implementations

Code Comparison

WebRTC-Experiment:

connection.openOrJoin('room-id', function(isRoomCreated, roomid, error) {
    if(error) {
        console.error(error);
    }
    else if(isRoomCreated) {
        console.log('Room created');
    }
    else {
        console.log('Room joined');
    }
});

Jitsi Meet:

const domain = 'meet.jit.si';
const options = {
    roomName: 'MyMeetingRoom',
    width: 700,
    height: 700,
    parentNode: document.querySelector('#meet')
};
const api = new JitsiMeetExternalAPI(domain, options);

WebRTC-Experiment focuses on simplicity and ease of use for basic WebRTC functionality, while Jitsi Meet provides a more robust and feature-complete video conferencing solution. WebRTC-Experiment is better suited for developers looking to quickly implement basic WebRTC features, whereas Jitsi Meet is ideal for those needing a full-fledged, scalable video conferencing platform.

Pros of node-webrtc

• Native C++ implementation, offering better performance for server-side WebRTC applications
• Provides low-level access to WebRTC APIs, allowing for more fine-grained control
• Supports Node.js, enabling integration with existing Node.js applications and ecosystems

Cons of node-webrtc

• Steeper learning curve due to its low-level nature and C++ integration
• Less extensive documentation and examples compared to WebRTC-Experiment
• Requires compilation of native modules, which can be challenging for some developers

Code Comparison

WebRTC-Experiment (JavaScript):

var connection = new RTCMultiConnection();
connection.socketURL = 'https://rtcmulticonnection.herokuapp.com:443/';
connection.session = {
    audio: true,
    video: true
};
connection.openOrJoin('room-id');

node-webrtc (C++/JavaScript):

const wrtc = require('node-webrtc');
const pc = new wrtc.RTCPeerConnection();
const dc = pc.createDataChannel('test');
pc.createOffer().then(offer => pc.setLocalDescription(offer));

WebRTC-Experiment focuses on high-level abstractions and ease of use, while node-webrtc provides low-level access to WebRTC functionality, requiring more setup but offering greater flexibility and control.