Pros of aria2

• Multi-protocol support (HTTP/HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, Metalink)
• Lightweight and resource-efficient
• Extensive command-line interface for advanced users

Cons of aria2

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less user-friendly interface compared to GUI-based downloaders
• Requires additional setup for integration with web browsers

Code Comparison

aria2:

void HttpSkipResponseCommand::executeInternal() {
  if (response_->headerComplete()) {
    skipBody();
  } else {
    readHeader();
  }
}

proxyee-down:

public void parse(HttpRequest httpRequest, Channel channel) {
  HttpRequestInfo requestInfo = (HttpRequestInfo) httpRequest.headers().get(HttpHeaderNames.HOST);
  if (requestInfo == null) {
    throw new IllegalArgumentException("host is null");
  }
}

Summary

aria2 is a versatile, lightweight command-line download utility supporting multiple protocols, while proxyee-down is a more user-friendly, GUI-based downloader with a focus on HTTP(S) downloads. aria2 offers greater flexibility and efficiency for advanced users, but may be less accessible for beginners compared to proxyee-down's simpler interface. The code snippets highlight the different languages and approaches used in each project, with aria2 written in C++ and proxyee-down in Java.

Pros of Motrix

• Multi-protocol support: Handles HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, and Magnet links
• User-friendly interface with a modern design
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of Motrix

• Larger file size and resource usage
• Less focused on specific download acceleration techniques

Code Comparison

Motrix (JavaScript):

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron')
const is = require('electron-is')
const { join } = require('path')
const logger = require('./core/logger')

Proxyee-down (Java):

public class HttpDownBootstrap {
  private HttpDownInfo httpDownInfo;
  private int retryCount;
  private HttpDownCallback callback;
  private long lastDownSize;
}

Motrix uses Electron and JavaScript for its cross-platform GUI, while Proxyee-down is built with Java, focusing on backend functionality. Motrix's code structure reflects its emphasis on user interface and multi-platform support, whereas Proxyee-down's code is more centered around core download functionality and acceleration techniques.

Pros of proxyee-down

• More active development and recent updates
• Larger community and user base
• Better documentation and support

Cons of proxyee-down

• Potentially more complex codebase
• May have more dependencies

Code Comparison

proxyee-down:

public class HttpDownBootstrap {
    private HttpDownInfo httpDownInfo;
    private int retryCount;
    private HttpDownCallback callback;
    private boolean isDone;
}

proxyee-down>:

public class DownloadTask {
    private String url;
    private String filePath;
    private int threadCount;
    private long fileSize;
    private boolean isCompleted;
}

The code comparison shows that proxyee-down uses a more comprehensive HttpDownBootstrap class with additional features like retry count and callback functionality. In contrast, proxyee-down> has a simpler DownloadTask class focused on basic download information.

Both projects aim to provide download acceleration and management capabilities, but proxyee-down appears to have a more robust and actively maintained codebase. However, proxyee-down> might be easier to understand and integrate for simpler use cases.

Ultimately, the choice between the two repositories depends on specific project requirements, desired features, and the level of community support needed.

Pros of axel

• Lightweight and efficient command-line download accelerator
• Supports multiple protocols (HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS)
• Can resume interrupted downloads

Cons of axel

• Limited GUI options, primarily command-line based
• Less user-friendly for non-technical users
• Fewer advanced features compared to proxyee-down

Code Comparison

axel:

void *thread_func(void *arg)
{
    conn_t *conn = (conn_t *) arg;
    if(!conn->enabled)
        return NULL;
    conn->last_transfer = gettime();
    conn_setup(conn);
    conn_exec(conn);
    conn_disconnect(conn);
    return NULL;
}

proxyee-down:

public void start() throws Exception {
    if (proxyServer != null) {
        throw new IllegalStateException("Proxy server already started");
    }
    proxyServer = DefaultHttpProxyServer
            .bootstrap()
            .withAllowLocalOnly(false)
            .withPort(port)
            .withFiltersSource(new HttpProxyFiltersSourceAdapter() {
                public HttpFilters filterRequest(HttpRequest originalRequest, ChannelHandlerContext ctx) {
                    return new HttpFilters(originalRequest) {
                        @Override
                        public HttpResponse clientToProxyRequest(HttpObject httpObject) {
                            return null;
                        }
                    };
                }
            })
            .start();
}

The code snippets show that axel is written in C and focuses on multi-threaded downloading, while proxyee-down is written in Java and emphasizes proxy server functionality for intercepting and modifying HTTP requests.

Pros of Transmission

• Well-established, mature project with a large user base and active development
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, and more)
• Offers both GUI and command-line interfaces

Cons of Transmission

• Primarily focused on BitTorrent protocol, limiting its versatility for other download types
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users compared to simpler download managers

Code Comparison

Transmission (C):

tr_torrentSetSpeedLimit_KBps(tor, TR_UP, limit);
tr_torrentUseSpeedLimit(tor, TR_UP, true);

Proxyee-down (Java):

HttpDownBootstrap bootstrap = new HttpDownBootstrap(request, response, defaultDownCallback);
bootstrap.startDown();

While both projects handle downloads, Transmission focuses on BitTorrent protocol implementation, whereas Proxyee-down appears to be a more general-purpose HTTP downloader. Transmission's code snippet demonstrates setting speed limits for torrents, while Proxyee-down's code shows the initiation of an HTTP download.

Transmission offers a more comprehensive solution for BitTorrent downloads with advanced features, while Proxyee-down may be more suitable for users seeking a simpler, multi-protocol download manager.