Pros of Electron Forge

• Official Electron tooling with extensive documentation and community support
• Integrated build and packaging tools for multiple platforms
• Customizable project templates and flexible configuration options

Cons of Electron Forge

• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to more advanced features
• Potentially more complex setup process for simple projects
• Larger project size and dependencies compared to minimal boilerplates

Code Comparison

Electron Forge (package.json):

{
  "scripts": {
    "start": "electron-forge start",
    "package": "electron-forge package",
    "make": "electron-forge make"
  }
}

Electron Boilerplate (package.json):

{
  "scripts": {
    "start": "electron-webpack dev",
    "compile": "electron-webpack",
    "dist": "yarn compile && electron-builder"
  }
}

Electron Forge provides a more streamlined approach with built-in commands for starting, packaging, and building the application. Electron Boilerplate relies on separate tools like electron-webpack and electron-builder, requiring additional configuration.

Electron Forge offers a more comprehensive solution for Electron app development, while Electron Boilerplate provides a lightweight starting point. The choice between them depends on project requirements, developer experience, and desired level of customization.

Pros of electron-react-boilerplate

• Includes React and Redux out of the box, providing a robust framework for building complex UIs
• Offers TypeScript support, enhancing code quality and developer productivity
• Includes a more comprehensive set of development tools and configurations

Cons of electron-react-boilerplate

• Larger initial project size due to included dependencies
• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with React and Redux
• May be overkill for simple applications that don't require a complex UI framework

Code Comparison

electron-boilerplate (main.js):

app.on('ready', () => {
  mainWindow = createWindow('main', {
    width: 1000,
    height: 600,
  });
  mainWindow.loadFile(path.join(__dirname, 'app.html'));
});

electron-react-boilerplate (main.dev.ts):

app.on('ready', createWindow);
app.on('window-all-closed', () => {
  if (process.platform !== 'darwin') {
    app.quit();
  }
});

The electron-react-boilerplate example uses TypeScript and has a more modular structure, with the window creation logic separated into a different file. It also includes additional event handling for improved cross-platform behavior.

Pros of electron-quick-start

• Simpler and more lightweight, ideal for beginners
• Officially maintained by the Electron team
• Focuses on the bare essentials for getting started

Cons of electron-quick-start

• Lacks advanced features and build configurations
• Doesn't include testing setup or production-ready optimizations
• Limited project structure, requiring more setup for larger applications

Code Comparison

electron-quick-start:

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

function createWindow () {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow)

electron-boilerplate:

import { app } from 'electron';
import { createWindow } from './helpers/window';

const setAppMenu = require('./helpers/menu');
const setIpcMain = require('./helpers/ipc');

app.on('ready', () => {
  setAppMenu();
  setIpcMain();
  createWindow('main', { width: 1000, height: 600 });
});

electron-quick-start provides a minimal setup with a single file, while electron-boilerplate offers a more structured approach with separate helper files for different functionalities. The latter is better suited for larger projects requiring more organization and advanced features.

Pros of electron-vue

• Integrates Vue.js framework, providing a robust and reactive component-based architecture
• Includes vue-cli for easy project scaffolding and management
• Offers built-in support for vue-router and vuex for state management

Cons of electron-vue

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Vue.js ecosystem
• More opinionated structure, which may limit flexibility for some projects
• Slightly larger initial project size due to additional Vue.js dependencies

Code Comparison

electron-vue:

import Vue from 'vue'
import App from './App.vue'

new Vue({
  render: h => h(App)
}).$mount('#app')

electron-boilerplate:

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron';
import * as path from 'path';

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

Summary

electron-vue is ideal for developers who prefer Vue.js and want a more structured, feature-rich boilerplate. It offers a complete Vue.js integration, including vue-router and vuex, making it suitable for complex applications.

electron-boilerplate provides a more minimal setup, offering greater flexibility and a lower entry barrier for developers new to Electron. It's better suited for simpler applications or those requiring a custom framework setup.

Choose based on your familiarity with Vue.js, project complexity, and desired level of structure and features.

Pros of angular-electron

• Integrates Angular framework, providing a robust structure for large-scale applications
• Includes TypeScript support out of the box, enhancing code quality and maintainability
• Offers a more comprehensive set of development tools and scripts

Cons of angular-electron

• Steeper learning curve due to Angular's complexity
• Potentially heavier and slower startup compared to the lightweight electron-boilerplate
• May be overkill for simple Electron applications

Code Comparison

electron-boilerplate:

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

function createWindow() {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 });
  win.loadFile('index.html');
}

angular-electron:

import { app, BrowserWindow } from 'electron';
import * as path from 'path';
import * as fs from 'fs';

let win: BrowserWindow | null = null;
const args = process.argv.slice(1),
  serve = args.some(val => val === '--serve');

function createWindow(): BrowserWindow {
  win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 });
  win.loadURL(serve ? 'http://localhost:4200' : 'file://' + __dirname + '/index.html');
  return win;
}

The angular-electron boilerplate provides a more structured approach with TypeScript and additional configuration options, while electron-boilerplate offers a simpler setup for basic Electron applications.

Pros of Fiddle

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Includes a built-in Electron playground for quick experimentation
• Offers a user-friendly GUI for managing Electron projects

Cons of Fiddle

• Larger project scope, potentially more complex for beginners
• Focused on experimentation rather than production-ready boilerplate
• May include features not needed for simple Electron applications

Code Comparison

Fiddle (main process):

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

function createWindow () {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadFile('index.html')
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow)

Electron Boilerplate (main process):

import { app } from 'electron';
import { createWindow } from './helpers/window';

app.on('ready', () => {
  createWindow('main', { width: 1000, height: 600 });
});

Both repositories provide a starting point for Electron development, but they serve different purposes. Fiddle is geared towards experimentation and learning, offering a playground environment with a GUI. Electron Boilerplate, on the other hand, provides a more traditional boilerplate structure for building production-ready applications.

Fiddle's code tends to be more straightforward and educational, while Electron Boilerplate offers a more structured approach with separate helper functions and modules. The choice between the two depends on the developer's needs and project requirements.