Pros of Logseq

• Open-source with a strong community and plugin ecosystem
• Offline-first approach with local file storage
• Advanced graph view for visualizing connections between notes

Cons of Logseq

• Steeper learning curve due to its outliner-based structure
• Limited collaboration features compared to AFFiNE
• Less emphasis on visual document editing and formatting

Code Comparison

Logseq (ClojureScript):

(defn get-block-property [block property-name]
  (when-let [properties (:block/properties block)]
    (get properties property-name)))

AFFiNE (TypeScript):

export function getBlockProperty(block: Block, propertyName: string): any {
  return block.properties?.[propertyName];
}

Both projects use different programming languages, reflecting their architectural choices. Logseq's ClojureScript code showcases its functional programming approach, while AFFiNE's TypeScript demonstrates a more object-oriented style. The code snippets perform similar functions but with syntax and paradigm differences typical of their respective languages.

Pros of Obsidian-releases

• Mature and stable product with a large user base and extensive plugin ecosystem
• Offline-first approach, ensuring data privacy and local storage
• Powerful linking and graph visualization features for knowledge management

Cons of Obsidian-releases

• Closed-source core application, limiting community contributions to the main codebase
• Less collaborative features compared to AFFiNE's real-time editing capabilities
• Primarily focused on personal knowledge management, with fewer team-oriented features

Code Comparison

While both projects are primarily focused on note-taking and knowledge management, their codebases differ significantly due to their architectural approaches.

Obsidian (JavaScript/TypeScript):

export class MarkdownView extends TextFileView {
  constructor(leaf: WorkspaceLeaf) {
    super(leaf);
    this.registerDomEvents();
  }
}

AFFiNE (TypeScript/React):

export const Editor: React.FC<EditorProps> = ({ docId }) => {
  const { doc } = useBlockSuiteDoc(docId);
  return <BlockSuiteEditor doc={doc} />;
};

The code snippets highlight the different approaches: Obsidian uses a more traditional object-oriented structure, while AFFiNE leverages React components for its user interface.

Pros of Foam

• Lightweight and flexible, integrating seamlessly with VS Code
• Extensive community-driven templates and extensions
• Strong focus on local-first, plain text storage for data ownership

Cons of Foam

• Less feature-rich compared to AFFiNE's all-in-one solution
• Limited built-in collaboration features
• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

Foam (JavaScript):

const foam = require('foam-core');
const workspace = foam.create();
workspace.notes.create('My first note');

AFFiNE (TypeScript):

import { Workspace } from '@affine/core';
const workspace = new Workspace();
workspace.createPage('My first page');

Summary

Foam excels in flexibility and integration with existing tools, while AFFiNE offers a more comprehensive, all-in-one solution. Foam is ideal for developers and power users comfortable with customization, whereas AFFiNE provides a more polished, user-friendly experience out of the box. The choice between them depends on individual preferences for customization versus convenience.

Pros of SiYuan

• More mature project with a larger user base and community
• Offers a desktop application for offline use
• Supports multiple languages and has extensive documentation

Cons of SiYuan

• Less focus on real-time collaboration features
• More complex setup and learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

SiYuan (Go):

func (box *Box) Index(docIDs []string) (err error) {
    if 1 > len(docIDs) {
        return
    }

    util.PushEndlessProgress(Conf.Language(116))
    defer util.ClearPushProgress(100)

AFFiNE (TypeScript):

export const createPage = async (
  workspace: Workspace,
  parentId?: string,
  title?: string
): Promise<PageMeta> => {
  const page = await workspace.createPage({ parentId });

Both projects use different programming languages, with SiYuan primarily using Go and AFFiNE using TypeScript. SiYuan's code snippet shows indexing functionality, while AFFiNE's demonstrates page creation within a workspace.

Pros of AppFlowy

• More mature project with a larger community and more contributors
• Better documentation and user guides
• Cross-platform support (desktop and mobile)

Cons of AppFlowy

• Less focus on real-time collaboration features
• More complex setup process for developers
• Slower development pace compared to AFFiNE

Code Comparison

AppFlowy (Rust):

pub struct Document {
    pub id: String,
    pub name: String,
    pub blocks: Vec<Block>,
}

AFFiNE (TypeScript):

interface Page {
  id: string;
  title: string;
  content: BlockElement[];
}

Both projects use similar data structures for representing documents or pages, with AFFiNE using TypeScript and AppFlowy using Rust. The main difference lies in the naming conventions and specific implementation details.

AppFlowy's approach with Rust may offer better performance, while AFFiNE's TypeScript implementation could be more accessible to web developers. AFFiNE's structure seems more focused on block-based editing, which aligns with its collaborative nature.

Overall, AppFlowy offers a more established ecosystem and cross-platform support, while AFFiNE focuses on real-time collaboration and a more modern web-based approach. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Xournalpp

• Mature and stable project with a long development history
• Focused on handwriting and note-taking, providing a specialized experience
• Cross-platform support for Linux, Windows, and macOS

Cons of Xournalpp

• Limited collaboration features compared to AFFiNE's real-time collaboration
• Less emphasis on knowledge management and organization
• User interface may feel less modern compared to AFFiNE's sleek design

Code Comparison

Xournalpp (C++):

void XournalView::repaintPage(PageRef page) {
    int p = page->getPdfPageNr();
    XojPageView* view = viewPages[p];
    view->repaintPage();
}

AFFiNE (TypeScript):

export const Page: React.FC<PageProps> = ({ pageId }) => {
  const page = usePageData(pageId);
  return <PageRenderer data={page} />;
};

While both projects serve note-taking purposes, they differ in implementation and focus. Xournalpp is a C++ application tailored for handwriting and annotation, while AFFiNE is a web-based platform built with modern web technologies, emphasizing collaboration and knowledge management.