YesPlayMusic

Pros of NeteaseCloudMusicApi

• More comprehensive API coverage for NetEase Cloud Music
• Regularly updated with new features and bug fixes
• Suitable for developers building various applications and services

Cons of NeteaseCloudMusicApi

• Requires additional frontend development for a complete music player
• May be more complex to set up and use for non-developers
• Lacks a built-in user interface

Code Comparison

NeteaseCloudMusicApi (server-side API):

const { login_cellphone, user_playlist } = require('NeteaseCloudMusicApi')

login_cellphone({
  phone: '手机号',
  password: '密码'
}).then(result => {
  console.log(result)
  user_playlist({
    uid: result.body.account.id
  }).then(data => {
    console.log(data)
  })
})

YesPlayMusic (client-side application):

<template>
  <div class="player">
    <Cover :url="currentTrack.al.picUrl" :playing="isPlaying" />
    <div class="controls">
      <button @click="playPause">{{ isPlaying ? 'Pause' : 'Play' }}</button>
    </div>
  </div>
</template>

YesPlayMusic is a complete music player application with a user-friendly interface, while NeteaseCloudMusicApi provides a backend API for developers to build custom applications. YesPlayMusic offers a ready-to-use solution for end-users, whereas NeteaseCloudMusicApi requires additional development to create a functional music player.

Pros of lx-music-desktop

• More comprehensive music source options, including multiple platforms
• Advanced features like lyric synchronization and audio output device selection
• Supports both Windows and Linux operating systems

Cons of lx-music-desktop

• Less visually appealing interface compared to YesPlayMusic's modern design
• Potentially more complex user experience due to additional features
• Lacks some of the social features present in YesPlayMusic

Code Comparison

YesPlayMusic (Vue.js):

import { createApp } from 'vue';
import App from './App.vue';
import router from './router';
import store from './store';

createApp(App).use(store).use(router).mount('#app');

lx-music-desktop (Electron):

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

function createWindow() {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({
    width: 800,
    height: 600,
    webPreferences: {
      preload: path.join(__dirname, 'preload.js')
    }
  });
  win.loadFile('index.html');
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow);

Both projects use different frameworks, with YesPlayMusic utilizing Vue.js for a web-based approach, while lx-music-desktop employs Electron for a desktop application. This fundamental difference affects their architecture and deployment methods.

Pros of SaltPlayerSource

• Focuses on local music playback, providing a lightweight solution for users who prefer offline listening
• Offers a clean and minimalist user interface, potentially easier for some users to navigate
• Supports a wider range of audio formats, including lossless formats like FLAC

Cons of SaltPlayerSource

• Lacks integration with online music streaming services, limiting access to a vast library of songs
• Has fewer advanced features compared to YesPlayMusic, such as personalized recommendations or social sharing options
• May have a smaller community and less frequent updates due to its more niche focus

Code Comparison

YesPlayMusic (Vue.js):

<template>
  <div class="player">
    <div class="cover-image">
      <img :src="currentTrack.album.cover" />
    </div>
    <div class="controls">
      <button @click="play">Play</button>
    </div>
  </div>
</template>

SaltPlayerSource (Kotlin):

class PlayerActivity : AppCompatActivity() {
    override fun onCreate(savedInstanceState: Bundle?) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState)
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_player)
        
        playButton.setOnClickListener { playMusic() }
    }
}

This comparison highlights the different technologies and approaches used in each project, with YesPlayMusic utilizing Vue.js for web-based development and SaltPlayerSource using Kotlin for Android app development.

Pros of Navidrome

• Self-hosted solution, giving users full control over their music library and data
• Supports a wide range of audio formats, including FLAC and OGG
• Implements the Subsonic API, allowing compatibility with various mobile apps

Cons of Navidrome

• Requires more technical setup and maintenance compared to YesPlayMusic
• May have a steeper learning curve for non-technical users
• Limited built-in social features or music discovery options

Code Comparison

Navidrome (Go):

func (s *Scanner) processMediaFiles(ctx context.Context, dir string, files []string) error {
    for _, f := range files {
        if err := s.processMediaFile(ctx, f); err != nil {
            log.Error(ctx, "Error processing file", "file", f, err)
        }
    }
    return nil
}

YesPlayMusic (Vue.js):

async function getArtist(id) {
  const { data } = await artist(id);
  return data;
}

async function getArtistAlbums(id) {
  const { albums } = await artistAlbum(id);
  return albums;
}

Summary

Navidrome is a self-hosted music server with broad format support and Subsonic API compatibility, ideal for users who want full control over their music library. YesPlayMusic, on the other hand, offers a more user-friendly interface with integrated streaming services, making it better suited for casual listeners who prefer a streamlined experience without the need for self-hosting.

Pros of koel

• More comprehensive backend with user management and playlist features
• Supports multiple audio sources including local files and remote URLs
• Has a mobile-friendly web interface

Cons of koel

• Requires more setup and configuration
• Less focus on integration with external music services
• May have a steeper learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

koel (PHP):

public function getPlaylistById($id)
{
    return Playlist::findOrFail($id);
}

YesPlayMusic (JavaScript):

async function getPlaylistDetail(id) {
  const { playlist } = await getPlaylistDetail(id);
  return playlist;
}

Both projects handle playlist retrieval, but koel uses a more traditional ORM approach with PHP, while YesPlayMusic employs async/await in JavaScript for API calls.

Key Differences

• koel is a self-hosted solution, while YesPlayMusic focuses on integrating with existing music services
• koel offers more advanced features for managing a personal music library
• YesPlayMusic has a more modern, user-friendly interface designed for casual listeners
• koel is built with Laravel (PHP) backend, while YesPlayMusic uses Vue.js for a single-page application approach

Conclusion

Choose koel for a comprehensive self-hosted music solution with advanced library management. Opt for YesPlayMusic if you prefer a simpler setup and integration with popular music streaming services.