Pros of Standard Notes

• Cross-platform support (web, desktop, mobile)
• End-to-end encryption for enhanced security
• Extensive plugin system for customization

Cons of Standard Notes

• Less intuitive interface compared to Notable
• Slower performance, especially with large number of notes
• Limited markdown support out of the box

Code Comparison

Standard Notes (TypeScript):

export class Note extends Item {
  public title?: string;
  public text?: string;
  public preview_plain?: string;
  public preview_html?: string;
}

Notable (JavaScript):

class Note extends Model {
  constructor ( note = {} ) {
    super ();
    this.metadata = new Metadata ( note.metadata );
    this.plainContent = note.plainContent || '';
    this.filePath = note.filePath || '';
  }
}

Both projects use object-oriented programming for note management. Standard Notes employs TypeScript with optional properties, while Notable uses JavaScript with default values in the constructor. Standard Notes includes HTML preview support, whereas Notable focuses on plain content and file paths.

Pros of Joplin

• Cross-platform support (desktop, mobile, terminal)
• End-to-end encryption for secure note-taking
• Extensive plugin system for customization

Cons of Joplin

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Slower performance with large databases
• Less visually polished interface compared to Notable

Code Comparison

Joplin (JavaScript):

const Note = require('lib/models/Note.js');

async function createNote(title, body) {
  const note = await Note.save({ title: title, body: body });
  return note;
}

Notable (TypeScript):

import Note from './note';

function createNote(title: string, content: string): Note {
  return new Note({ title, content });
}

Both projects use JavaScript/TypeScript for their core functionality. Joplin's codebase is more extensive due to its broader feature set, while Notable's code tends to be more concise and focused on simplicity.

Joplin offers a more comprehensive note-taking solution with advanced features like synchronization and encryption, making it suitable for users with complex requirements. Notable, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more streamlined experience that may be preferable for users seeking a straightforward note-taking application with a clean interface.

Pros of Trilium

• More advanced hierarchical note organization with unlimited nesting
• Built-in scripting capabilities for automation and customization
• Supports encrypted synchronization between devices

Cons of Trilium

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Less polished user interface compared to Notable
• Requires more system resources for larger note collections

Code Comparison

Trilium (JavaScript):

const note = await becca.createNote(parentNote, 'New note', 'This is the content');
await noteService.saveNoteRevisionIfNeeded(note);

Notable (TypeScript):

const note = new Note({ title: 'New note', content: 'This is the content' });
await note.save();

Both projects use JavaScript/TypeScript, but Trilium's API appears more complex, reflecting its advanced features. Notable's code is more straightforward, aligning with its focus on simplicity.

Trilium offers more powerful features for advanced users, while Notable provides a simpler, more user-friendly experience. The choice between them depends on the user's needs for complexity versus ease of use.

Pros of Logseq

• Open-source and free to use
• Supports bidirectional linking and graph view
• Offers both local storage and cloud sync options

Cons of Logseq

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique structure
• Less polished UI compared to Notable
• Limited customization options for themes and layouts

Code Comparison

Logseq (ClojureScript):

(defn get-block-by-id
  [id]
  (when id
    (db/entity [:block/uuid (uuid id)])))

Notable (TypeScript):

export function getNoteById (noteId: NoteId): Note | undefined {
  return NotesStore.get().notes[noteId];
}

Both projects use different programming languages, making direct code comparison challenging. Logseq is primarily written in ClojureScript, while Notable uses TypeScript. The code snippets show similar functionality for retrieving notes or blocks by their IDs, but the implementation details differ due to the language and architecture choices.

Logseq focuses on a graph-based structure with blocks, while Notable uses a more traditional note-based approach. This fundamental difference is reflected in their respective codebases and data models.