Pros of Mortar

• Developed and maintained by Square, a well-known company in the mobile development space
• Provides a comprehensive set of tools for building Android apps, including view management and dependency injection
• Integrates well with other Square libraries like Dagger and Otto

Cons of Mortar

• Less active development and updates compared to Mosby
• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• May be considered outdated as it doesn't fully embrace modern Android development practices

Code Comparison

Mosby (MVP implementation):

public class MyPresenter extends MvpBasePresenter<MyView> {
    public void doSomething() {
        // Presenter logic
        getView().showResult();
    }
}

Mortar (Presenter implementation):

@Singleton
public class MyPresenter extends Presenter<MyView> {
    @Override
    protected void onLoad(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        // Presenter logic
        getView().showResult();
    }
}

Both libraries aim to implement the MVP pattern, but Mosby offers a more straightforward approach with less boilerplate code. Mortar, on the other hand, provides a more opinionated structure that integrates with other Square libraries.

While Mortar offers a robust solution, Mosby's active development and simpler implementation make it a more attractive choice for many developers working on modern Android projects.

Pros of Conductor

• Lightweight and focused on view-based navigation
• Easier to integrate into existing projects
• Better support for custom transitions and animations

Cons of Conductor

• Less comprehensive than Mosby for full MVP architecture
• Fewer built-in tools for handling state and data binding
• May require more manual setup for complex view hierarchies

Code Comparison

Conductor:

class MainController : Controller() {
    override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup): View {
        return inflater.inflate(R.layout.controller_main, container, false)
    }
}

Mosby:

class MainPresenter : MvpBasePresenter<MainView>() {
    fun loadData() {
        // Load data and update view
    }
}

class MainFragment : MvpFragment<MainView, MainPresenter>(), MainView {
    override fun createPresenter(): MainPresenter = MainPresenter()
}

Conductor focuses on view-based navigation and lifecycle management, while Mosby provides a more comprehensive MVP architecture. Conductor's approach is simpler for basic navigation scenarios, but Mosby offers more structure for complex applications with intricate data flows and state management.

Pros of RxLifecycle

• Lightweight and focused specifically on managing RxJava subscriptions
• Easy to integrate into existing projects without major architectural changes
• Provides a simple API for binding observables to Android lifecycle events

Cons of RxLifecycle

• Limited scope compared to Mosby's full MVP implementation
• Doesn't provide a complete architecture solution for Android apps
• May require additional libraries or patterns for a comprehensive app structure

Code Comparison

RxLifecycle:

myObservable
    .compose(RxLifecycle.bindUntilEvent(lifecycle, ActivityEvent.DESTROY))
    .subscribe();

Mosby:

public class MyPresenter extends MvpBasePresenter<MyView> {
    @Override
    public void attachView(MyView view) {
        super.attachView(view);
        // Presenter logic here
    }
}

Summary

RxLifecycle focuses on managing RxJava subscriptions in Android, offering a lightweight solution for lifecycle-aware observables. Mosby, on the other hand, provides a complete MVP architecture implementation with additional features beyond subscription management. RxLifecycle is easier to integrate into existing projects, while Mosby offers a more comprehensive approach to app architecture. The choice between the two depends on the project's specific needs and the desired level of architectural guidance.

Pros of Nucleus

• Lightweight and minimalistic approach to Android architecture
• Focuses on dependency injection and lifecycle management
• Easier learning curve for developers new to MVP/MVVM patterns

Cons of Nucleus

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to Mosby
• Smaller community and fewer resources available
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

Nucleus:

public class MyPresenter extends Presenter<MyView> {
    @Override
    protected void onTakeView(MyView view) {
        super.onTakeView(view);
        // Presenter logic here
    }
}

Mosby:

public class MyPresenter extends MvpBasePresenter<MyView> {
    @Override
    public void attachView(MyView view) {
        super.attachView(view);
        // Presenter logic here
    }
}

Both libraries aim to simplify Android development using MVP/MVVM patterns, but Mosby offers a more comprehensive solution with additional features and a larger ecosystem. Nucleus, on the other hand, provides a more lightweight approach that may be easier for beginners to grasp.

Mosby includes built-in support for view state management and handling orientation changes, which Nucleus lacks. However, Nucleus's simplicity can be advantageous for smaller projects or developers who prefer a minimalistic approach.

Ultimately, the choice between Nucleus and Mosby depends on the project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of abstraction in the architecture.

Pros of Mavericks

• Built specifically for Kotlin, leveraging its features and syntax
• Integrates well with Jetpack Compose for modern UI development
• Provides a more opinionated architecture, potentially reducing boilerplate

Cons of Mavericks

• Less flexible than Mosby, which supports both Java and Kotlin
• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• May be overkill for smaller projects or teams new to MVI

Code Comparison

Mosby (MVP pattern):

class MyPresenter : MvpBasePresenter<MyView>() {
    fun loadData() {
        // Load data and update view
    }
}

Mavericks (MVI pattern):

class MyViewModel(state: MyState) : MavericksViewModel<MyState>(state) {
    fun loadData() = setState { copy(isLoading = true) }
}

Both libraries aim to provide architectural patterns for Android development, but they differ in their approach. Mosby focuses on MVP and supports both Java and Kotlin, making it more versatile for existing projects. Mavericks, on the other hand, is tailored for Kotlin and follows the MVI pattern, which can lead to more predictable state management but may require more setup.