Pros of i3

• Mature and stable project with a large user base
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Works with X11, which is still widely used

Cons of i3

• Limited to X11, not compatible with Wayland
• Less modern features compared to newer window managers
• Slower development pace due to established codebase

Code Comparison

i3 (C):

static void handle_expose_event(xcb_expose_event_t *event) {
    struct Con *con;
    if ((con = con_by_window_id(event->window)) == NULL)
        return;
    x_push_changes(con);
}

Sway (C):

static void handle_layer_surface_commit(struct wlr_surface *surface) {
    struct sway_layer_surface *layer = layer_from_wlr_layer_surface(surface->data);
    if (!layer) {
        return;
    }
    arrange_layers(layer->output);
}

Key Differences

• Sway is built for Wayland, while i3 is for X11
• Sway aims to be a drop-in replacement for i3 on Wayland
• Sway includes more modern features and active development
• i3 has a larger existing user base and ecosystem

Both projects are tiling window managers written in C, but Sway is designed for the newer Wayland display protocol, offering improved security and performance. i3 remains popular due to its stability and widespread X11 usage.

Pros of Hyprland

• More customizable and feature-rich, offering advanced animations and effects
• Better performance on high-refresh-rate displays
• Supports both X11 and Wayland protocols

Cons of Hyprland

• Less stable and mature compared to Sway
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Smaller community and ecosystem

Code Comparison

Hyprland configuration example:

monitor=,preferred,auto,1

input {
    kb_layout = us
    follow_mouse = 1
}

general {
    gaps_in = 5
    gaps_out = 20
    border_size = 2
    col.active_border = rgba(33ccffee)
}

Sway configuration example:

output * bg ~/Pictures/wallpaper.png fill

input "type:keyboard" {
    xkb_layout us
}

gaps inner 5
gaps outer 20
default_border pixel 2
client.focused #33ccff #33ccff #ffffff

Both Hyprland and Sway use similar configuration syntax, but Hyprland offers more advanced options for customization and visual effects. Sway's configuration is generally simpler and more straightforward, reflecting its focus on stability and compatibility with i3 configurations.

Pros of bspwm

• Lightweight and minimal resource usage
• Highly customizable through simple shell scripts
• Works well with external bars and utilities

Cons of bspwm

• X11-only, no Wayland support
• Less user-friendly for beginners
• Requires more manual configuration

Code Comparison

bspwm configuration (bspwmrc):

#! /bin/sh

bspc monitor -d I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
bspc config border_width         2
bspc config window_gap          12
bspc config split_ratio          0.52

Sway configuration (config):

# Default config for sway
# Read `man 5 sway` for a complete reference.

### Output configuration
output * bg /usr/share/backgrounds/sway/Sway_Wallpaper_Blue_1920x1080.png fill

bspwm is a tiling window manager for X11, focusing on simplicity and extensibility. It uses a binary space partitioning layout algorithm and is controlled through shell commands. Sway, on the other hand, is a Wayland compositor designed as a drop-in replacement for i3, offering modern features and Wayland compatibility.

While bspwm excels in minimalism and customization, Sway provides a more user-friendly experience with built-in features like a status bar and better multi-monitor support. The choice between them often depends on whether Wayland support is needed and the user's preference for configuration complexity versus out-of-the-box functionality.

Pros of picom

• Lightweight and focused on compositing, making it more versatile for use with various window managers
• Offers extensive configuration options for visual effects and performance tuning
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of picom

• Limited to X11 environments, not compatible with Wayland
• Requires separate window manager, increasing system complexity
• May introduce screen tearing or performance issues on some hardware configurations

Code comparison

picom (configuration example):

backend = "glx";
vsync = true;
shadow = true;
fading = true;
inactive-opacity = 0.8;

Sway (configuration example):

output * bg ~/wallpaper.png fill
input * {
    xkb_layout "us"
}
bar {
    position top
}

Key differences

• Sway is a complete Wayland compositor and window manager, while picom is an X11 compositor only
• Sway uses wlroots as its backend, offering better Wayland integration and performance
• picom focuses on visual effects and customization, while Sway prioritizes functionality and Wayland compatibility
• Sway's configuration is more similar to i3, making it familiar for i3 users transitioning to Wayland

Pros of herbstluftwm

• Highly customizable through a simple scripting interface
• Lightweight and minimal resource usage
• Supports multiple monitors with independent workspaces

Cons of herbstluftwm

• X11-based, lacking Wayland support
• Steeper learning curve for configuration
• Less active development compared to Sway

Code Comparison

herbstluftwm configuration example:

hc keybind $Mod-Shift-q quit
hc keybind $Mod-Shift-r reload
hc keybind $Mod-w close
hc keybind $Mod-Return spawn ${TERMINAL:-xterm}

Sway configuration example:

bindsym $mod+Shift+q exit
bindsym $mod+Shift+c reload
bindsym $mod+q kill
bindsym $mod+Return exec $term

Both window managers use similar configuration syntax, but herbstluftwm uses a separate script for configuration, while Sway uses a configuration file similar to i3. Sway's configuration is generally more straightforward and familiar to i3 users, while herbstluftwm offers more flexibility through its scripting approach.

Pros of awesome

• Highly customizable using Lua scripting
• Extensive widget system for creating complex layouts
• Supports multiple monitors out of the box

Cons of awesome

• X11-based, lacking Wayland support
• Steeper learning curve due to Lua configuration
• Less modern default appearance

Code comparison

awesome (rc.lua):

awful.layout.layouts = {
    awful.layout.suit.floating,
    awful.layout.suit.tile,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.left,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.bottom,
    awful.layout.suit.tile.top,
}

Sway (config):

output * bg /usr/share/backgrounds/sway/Sway_Wallpaper_Blue_1920x1080.png fill
input * {
    xkb_layout "us"
    xkb_variant "colemak"
}

awesome focuses on providing a highly customizable environment through Lua scripting, offering extensive widget support and multi-monitor capabilities. However, it lacks Wayland support and has a steeper learning curve.

Sway, being Wayland-based, offers better compatibility with modern systems and a simpler configuration syntax. It provides a more streamlined experience out of the box but may have fewer customization options compared to awesome's Lua-based approach.

The code examples highlight the difference in configuration styles, with awesome using Lua for layout definitions and Sway using a more straightforward key-value syntax for basic settings.