Pros of Electron Forge

• More comprehensive toolset for Electron app development, including boilerplate generation and publishing
• Official Electron tool with better long-term support and integration
• Supports multiple frontend frameworks, not limited to Vue.js

Cons of Electron Forge

• Steeper learning curve for developers already familiar with Vue CLI
• May require more configuration for Vue.js projects compared to a Vue-specific plugin
• Less seamless integration with existing Vue CLI projects

Code Comparison

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

module.exports = {
  pluginOptions: {
    electronBuilder: {
      builderOptions: {
        // Configure electron-builder options here
      }
    }
  }
}

Electron Forge:

module.exports = {
  packagerConfig: {},
  makers: [
    {
      name: '@electron-forge/maker-squirrel',
      config: {
        // Configure maker options here
      }
    }
  ]
}

Summary

Electron Forge offers a more comprehensive and flexible solution for Electron app development, supporting multiple frameworks and providing extensive tooling. However, vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder excels in its seamless integration with Vue CLI projects and simplicity for Vue.js developers. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of customization.

Pros of electron-react-boilerplate

• Comprehensive boilerplate with a full-featured development environment
• Includes hot-reloading and ready-to-use testing setup
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and a large community

Cons of electron-react-boilerplate

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive configuration
• Less flexibility for customization as it's a full boilerplate
• Potentially includes unnecessary features for simpler projects

Code Comparison

electron-react-boilerplate:

import { app, BrowserWindow, shell, ipcMain } from 'electron';
import { autoUpdater } from 'electron-updater';
import log from 'electron-log';
import MenuBuilder from './menu';
import { resolveHtmlPath } from './util';

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron');
const path = require('path');

function createWindow() {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({
    width: 800,
    height: 600,
    webPreferences: {
      nodeIntegration: process.env.ELECTRON_NODE_INTEGRATION,
      contextIsolation: !process.env.ELECTRON_NODE_INTEGRATION
    }
  });

The code snippets show that electron-react-boilerplate includes more built-in features like auto-updating and logging, while vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder provides a simpler setup focused on creating the main window. This reflects the overall difference in approach between the two projects, with electron-react-boilerplate offering a more comprehensive out-of-the-box solution and vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder providing a more flexible, Vue-centric option.

Pros of electron-vue

• Provides a complete boilerplate with a pre-configured project structure
• Includes vue-devtools out of the box for easier debugging
• Offers a more opinionated setup, which can be beneficial for beginners

Cons of electron-vue

• Less flexible and harder to customize compared to vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder
• Not actively maintained, with fewer recent updates and potential compatibility issues
• Requires more setup and configuration for modern Vue.js features

Code Comparison

electron-vue (main process):

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron'

let mainWindow
app.on('ready', () => {
  mainWindow = new BrowserWindow({width: 800, height: 600})
  mainWindow.loadURL(`file://${__dirname}/index.html`)
})

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder (background.js):

import { app, protocol, BrowserWindow } from 'electron'
import { createProtocol } from 'vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder/lib'

let win
function createWindow() {
  win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600, webPreferences: { nodeIntegration: true } })
  if (process.env.WEBPACK_DEV_SERVER_URL) win.loadURL(process.env.WEBPACK_DEV_SERVER_URL)
  else {
    createProtocol('app')
    win.loadURL('app://./index.html')
  }
}
app.on('ready', createWindow)

The code comparison shows that vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder offers a more modern approach with better integration of development and production environments, while electron-vue provides a simpler setup but with less flexibility.

Pros of electron-quick-start

• Simple and straightforward setup for beginners
• Minimal boilerplate code, making it easier to understand the basics
• Provides a clean slate for custom Electron app development

Cons of electron-quick-start

• Lacks integration with modern front-end frameworks like Vue.js
• Requires manual setup for build processes and packaging
• Limited out-of-the-box features for production-ready applications

Code Comparison

electron-quick-start:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron')

function createWindow () {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow)

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

import { createApp } from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'
import { createElectronApp } from 'vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder'

createApp(App).mount('#app')

createElectronApp()

The electron-quick-start code shows a basic Electron setup, while vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder integrates Vue.js and provides a more structured approach for building Electron apps with Vue. The latter offers a higher level of abstraction and easier integration with the Vue ecosystem, making it more suitable for complex applications. However, electron-quick-start provides a simpler starting point for those who want to learn Electron basics or build custom solutions from scratch.

Pros of electron-vite-vue

• Faster build times due to Vite's efficient bundling and hot module replacement
• Better TypeScript support out of the box
• More modern and lightweight setup, with less configuration required

Cons of electron-vite-vue

• Less mature and potentially less stable compared to vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder
• Smaller community and fewer resources available for troubleshooting
• May require more manual setup for certain advanced features

Code Comparison

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

module.exports = {
  pluginOptions: {
    electronBuilder: {
      builderOptions: {
        // Configure electron-builder options here
      }
    }
  }
}

electron-vite-vue:

import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
import vue from '@vitejs/plugin-vue'
import electron from 'vite-plugin-electron'

export default defineConfig({
  plugins: [vue(), electron()]
})

The code comparison shows that electron-vite-vue has a simpler configuration setup, leveraging Vite's plugin system. vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder uses Vue CLI's configuration structure, which may be more familiar to developers already using Vue CLI.

Both projects aim to simplify Electron development with Vue, but electron-vite-vue focuses on modern, fast tooling with Vite, while vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder provides a more established ecosystem within the Vue CLI environment.

Pros of Tauri

• Smaller bundle sizes and better performance due to native system APIs
• Cross-platform support for mobile (iOS and Android) in addition to desktop
• Enhanced security with a rust-based backend

Cons of Tauri

• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers unfamiliar with Rust
• Less mature ecosystem compared to Electron-based solutions
• Limited access to certain native APIs that Electron provides

Code Comparison

vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron')

function createWindow () {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow)

Tauri:

#![cfg_attr(
  all(not(debug_assertions), target_os = "windows"),
  windows_subsystem = "windows"
)]

fn main() {
  tauri::Builder::default()
    .run(tauri::generate_context!())
    .expect("error while running tauri application");
}

The vue-cli-plugin-electron-builder uses JavaScript and Electron's APIs, while Tauri uses Rust for its core functionality. Tauri's approach results in smaller binaries and potentially better performance, but may require more setup and learning for developers new to Rust.