Pros of MaterialDesignLibrary

• More comprehensive set of UI components, including floating action buttons and progress bars
• Includes custom views like TickerView for scrolling text animations
• Better documentation with detailed usage examples

Cons of MaterialDesignLibrary

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Larger library size, potentially impacting app performance
• Some components may not fully adhere to the latest Material Design guidelines

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignLibrary:

MaterialButton button = new MaterialButton(this)
    .setText("BUTTON")
    .setBackgroundColor(Color.BLUE)
    .setRippleColor(Color.WHITE);
layout.addView(button);

material:

Button button = new Button(this);
button.setText("BUTTON");
button.setBackgroundTintList(ColorStateList.valueOf(Color.BLUE));
layout.addView(button);

Both libraries offer Material Design components, but MaterialDesignLibrary provides more custom views and animations. However, material is more actively maintained and may be more suitable for long-term projects. The code comparison shows that MaterialDesignLibrary offers a more fluent API for creating UI elements, while material relies more on standard Android views with Material Design styling.

Pros of material-dialogs

• More focused on dialog components, offering a wider range of customizable dialog options
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and bug fixes
• Extensive documentation and sample code available

Cons of material-dialogs

• Limited to dialog-related components, less comprehensive for overall Material Design implementation
• Larger library size due to its extensive dialog features

Code Comparison

material-dialogs:

MaterialDialog(this).show {
    title(R.string.your_title)
    message(R.string.your_message)
    positiveButton(R.string.agree)
    negativeButton(R.string.disagree)
}

material:

Dialog dialog = new Dialog(context)
    .title(R.string.your_title)
    .content(R.string.your_message)
    .positiveAction(R.string.agree)
    .negativeAction(R.string.disagree);
dialog.show();

Both libraries offer similar functionality for creating dialogs, but material-dialogs uses a more modern Kotlin-based approach with a DSL-like syntax. The material library uses a traditional Java builder pattern.

material-dialogs is ideal for projects requiring extensive dialog customization, while material provides a broader set of Material Design components beyond just dialogs. Choose based on your project's specific needs and the scope of Material Design implementation required.

Pros of awesome-android-ui

• Comprehensive collection of UI libraries and components
• Regularly updated with new and trending UI resources
• Categorized for easy navigation and discovery

Cons of awesome-android-ui

• Not a standalone library, requires integration of multiple dependencies
• May lead to inconsistency in design if using components from different sources
• Potential for conflicts between different libraries

Code Comparison

material:

MaterialButton button = new MaterialButton(context);
button.setBackgroundTintList(ColorStateList.valueOf(Color.BLUE));
button.setTextColor(Color.WHITE);
button.setText("Click Me");

awesome-android-ui (using a library from the collection, e.g., Material Components):

MaterialButton button = new MaterialButton(context);
button.setBackgroundColor(ContextCompat.getColor(context, R.color.colorPrimary));
button.setTextColor(ContextCompat.getColor(context, R.color.white));
button.setText("Click Me");

Note: The code comparison is similar as both examples use Material Design components, but awesome-android-ui provides a curated list of various UI libraries, not a single implementation.

Pros of RippleEffect

• Focused specifically on ripple effect animations
• Lightweight and easy to integrate for simple ripple effects
• Customizable ripple color and duration

Cons of RippleEffect

• Limited to ripple animations only, not a comprehensive UI library
• Less actively maintained compared to Material
• Fewer customization options for complex UI components

Code Comparison

RippleEffect:

RippleView rippleView = (RippleView) findViewById(R.id.ripple);
rippleView.setRippleColor(Color.parseColor("#ff0000"));
rippleView.setRippleDuration(1000);

Material:

MaterialRippleLayout.on(view)
    .rippleColor(Color.parseColor("#ff0000"))
    .rippleDuration(1000)
    .create();

Summary

RippleEffect is a specialized library for adding ripple animations to Android views, offering a simple and lightweight solution for this specific effect. It's easy to implement but limited in scope.

Material, on the other hand, is a comprehensive Material Design library that includes ripple effects along with many other UI components and features. It provides more extensive customization options and is more actively maintained.

Choose RippleEffect for quick implementation of ripple animations in simple projects, and Material for a full-featured Material Design implementation with broader UI capabilities.

Pros of MaterialDrawer

• More focused on drawer functionality, providing extensive customization options for navigation drawers
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and a large community
• Includes additional features like AccountHeader and BadgeStyle

Cons of MaterialDrawer

• Limited to drawer-related components, less comprehensive for overall Material Design implementation
• May require additional libraries for other Material Design elements
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API

Code Comparison

MaterialDrawer:

DrawerBuilder()
    .withActivity(this)
    .withToolbar(toolbar)
    .addDrawerItems(
        PrimaryDrawerItem().withName("Home"),
        SecondaryDrawerItem().withName("Settings")
    )
    .build()

Material:

NavigationDrawerView navigationDrawer = (NavigationDrawerView)findViewById(R.id.navigation_drawer);
navigationDrawer.addItem(new NavigationDrawerView.Item("Home"));
navigationDrawer.addItem(new NavigationDrawerView.Item("Settings"));

Summary

MaterialDrawer excels in creating feature-rich navigation drawers but is limited to that specific component. Material offers a broader range of Material Design components but may not provide as much depth for drawer functionality. The choice between the two depends on the project's specific needs and the developer's preference for API complexity versus overall Material Design implementation.

Pros of CircleImageView

• Focused solely on circular image views, providing a lightweight and specialized solution
• Simple to implement with minimal configuration required
• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of CircleImageView

• Limited to circular image views, lacking the comprehensive material design components offered by Material
• Doesn't provide additional styling options or animations beyond circular cropping
• May require additional libraries for more complex UI elements

Code Comparison

CircleImageView:

<de.hdodenhof.circleimageview.CircleImageView
    android:layout_width="96dp"
    android:layout_height="96dp"
    android:src="@drawable/profile"
    app:civ_border_width="2dp"
    app:civ_border_color="#FF000000"/>

Material:

<com.rey.material.widget.ImageView
    android:layout_width="96dp"
    android:layout_height="96dp"
    android:src="@drawable/profile"
    app:v_styleId="@style/Material.Drawable.CircularImage"
    app:v_strokeColor="#FF000000"
    app:v_strokeSize="2dp"/>

Both libraries offer simple implementation for circular images, but Material provides a wider range of UI components and styling options beyond just circular images. CircleImageView is more focused and lightweight, while Material offers a comprehensive material design solution for Android applications.