Pros of Plum

• Plum provides a more user-friendly and intuitive interface for managing and configuring the Rime input method engine.
• Plum offers a centralized platform for managing Rime plugins and customizations, making it easier to keep your Rime setup up-to-date.
• Plum simplifies the installation and deployment process for Rime, reducing the technical overhead for end-users.

Cons of Plum

• Plum is a higher-level abstraction over the core Rime library, which may limit the level of control and customization available to advanced users.
• Plum's reliance on the Rime library means that it inherits any limitations or issues present in the underlying library.
• The Plum project is relatively newer and may have a smaller community and ecosystem compared to the more established Rime library.

Code Comparison

Rime Library (librime):

bool Rime::Deploy(const string& schema_id) {
  if (!Deployer::Instance().Deploy(schema_id)) {
    LOG(ERROR) << "Failed to deploy schema: " << schema_id;
    return false;
  }
  return true;
}

Plum:

def deploy_schema(self, schema_id: str) -> bool:
    try:
        self.deployer.deploy(schema_id)
        return True
    except Exception as e:
        logger.error(f"Failed to deploy schema: {schema_id}")
        logger.exception(e)
        return False

The Rime library provides a low-level C++ interface for deploying Rime schemas, while Plum offers a more high-level Python API with error handling and logging.

Pros of fcitx/fcitx5

• Supports a wider range of input methods, including Pinyin, Wubi, and Cangjie, making it more versatile for users with diverse language needs.
• Offers a more modern and customizable user interface, allowing users to tailor the input experience to their preferences.
• Provides better integration with desktop environments, such as GNOME and KDE, for a more seamless user experience.

Cons of fcitx/fcitx5

• May have a steeper learning curve for users who are familiar with the simpler interface of rime/librime.
• Requires more system resources, which could be a concern for users with older or less powerful hardware.
• May have a smaller user community compared to rime/librime, potentially limiting the availability of third-party extensions and support.

Code Comparison

rime/librime (C++):

bool Rime::Processor::ProcessKeyEvent(const KeyEvent& key_event) {
  if (key_event.release) {
    return false;
  }
  if (key_event.ctrl || key_event.alt || key_event.super) {
    return false;
  }
  if (key_event.keycode == XK_space) {
    return true;
  }
  return false;
}

fcitx/fcitx5 (C++):

bool FcitxInstanceProcessKey(FcitxInstance* instance, FcitxKeyEventType type, const FcitxKeySym& sym, uint32_t state) {
    if (type == FCITX_RELEASE_KEY) {
        return false;
    }
    if (state & (FCITX_CTRL | FCITX_ALT | FCITX_SUPER)) {
        return false;
    }
    if (sym == FCITX_SPACE) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

Pros of Mozc

• Mozc is a more mature and feature-rich input method engine, with support for a wider range of languages and input methods.
• Mozc has a larger user base and more active development, with contributions from a wider community.
• Mozc is used as the default input method engine in Google Chrome OS and Android, providing a more integrated experience.

Cons of Mozc

• Mozc has a larger codebase and may be more complex to set up and configure, especially for users with specific requirements.
• Mozc's licensing (Apache License 2.0) may be less permissive than librime's (BSD 3-Clause License).
• Mozc's development is primarily driven by Google, which may limit the ability of the community to influence the project's direction.

Code Comparison

Mozc (Google):

bool Converter::ConvertToString(const ConversionRequest& request,
                               string* output) const {
  if (!request.has_key()) {
    return false;
  }

  const Segments& segments = request.conversion_segments();
  if (segments.empty()) {
    return false;
  }

librime (Rime):

bool Converter::Convert(const string& input, Segments* segments) {
  if (input.empty()) {
    return false;
  }

  if (!segments) {
    return false;
  }

  segments->clear();

The code snippets show that both Mozc and librime have similar methods for converting input to a string representation, with some differences in the specific implementation details.

Pros of OpenCC

• Supports a wider range of Chinese character conversion, including traditional to simplified, and vice versa.
• Provides a more comprehensive set of dictionaries and conversion rules.
• Offers a command-line interface for easy integration into various workflows.

Cons of OpenCC

• Lacks the advanced features and customization options available in librime.
• May have a steeper learning curve for users who are not familiar with the command-line interface.
• The project has a smaller community and fewer contributors compared to librime.

Code Comparison

OpenCC (simplified Chinese to traditional Chinese):

import opencc
converter = opencc.OpenCC('s2t.json')
result = converter.convert('你好，世界')
print(result)  # 你好，世界

librime (input method engine):

#include <rime/rime.h>

int main() {
    rime::Deployer deployer;
    rime::Processor processor(&deployer);
    rime::Input input;
    rime::Output output;
    processor.ProcessInput(input, &output);
    return 0;
}