Pros of Dendrite

• Designed specifically for Matrix protocol, offering native support for Matrix features
• Scalable architecture with separate components for different functions
• Written in Go, providing good performance and concurrency handling

Cons of Dendrite

• More complex setup and configuration compared to Yggdrasil
• Requires additional infrastructure (e.g., database) for full functionality
• Still in active development, may have stability issues compared to mature projects

Code Comparison

Dendrite (Matrix server implementation):

func (r *InternalAPIServer) QueryDevices(
    ctx context.Context,
    req *api.QueryDevicesRequest,
    res *api.QueryDevicesResponse,
) error {
    devices, err := r.DB.DeviceDatabase.GetDevicesByLocalpart(ctx, req.UserID.LocalPart())
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    res.Devices = devices
    return nil
}

Yggdrasil (Network routing implementation):

func (t *core) handlePacket(p *wire.Packet) {
    if p.IsRoutingWork() {
        t.handleRoutingWork(p)
    } else {
        t.handleTraffic(p)
    }
}

The code snippets demonstrate the different focus areas of the projects: Dendrite handles Matrix-specific operations, while Yggdrasil focuses on network routing and packet handling.

Pros of go-libp2p

• More extensive and modular networking stack with support for various protocols
• Larger community and ecosystem, with wider adoption in decentralized projects
• Better documentation and examples for developers

Cons of go-libp2p

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less focused on specific use cases, requiring more configuration

Code Comparison

go-libp2p

host, err := libp2p.New(
    libp2p.ListenAddrStrings("/ip4/0.0.0.0/tcp/0"),
    libp2p.Identity(priv),
)

yggdrasil-go

n := core.New(core.NodeConfig{
    AdminSocket: cfg.AdminListen,
    MulticastInterfaces: cfg.MulticastInterfaces,
})

go-libp2p provides a more flexible and customizable approach to creating a network host, while yggdrasil-go offers a simpler, more opinionated configuration for its specific use case.

go-libp2p is better suited for developers building complex decentralized applications with custom networking requirements, while yggdrasil-go is more appropriate for those seeking a ready-to-use mesh networking solution with minimal configuration.

Both projects are written in Go and focus on peer-to-peer networking, but they serve different purposes and target different user bases. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with networking concepts.

Pros of Syncthing

• Mature and widely adopted file synchronization solution
• User-friendly interface with desktop and mobile applications
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Syncthing

• Limited to file synchronization, not a general-purpose networking tool
• May have higher resource usage for large numbers of files or frequent changes

Code Comparison

Syncthing (Go):

func (m *Model) Index(folder string, fs fs.Filesystem, sub string) error {
    m.fmut.RLock()
    folderCfg := m.folderCfgs[folder]
    m.fmut.RUnlock()

    if folderCfg.Type == config.FolderTypeReceiveOnly {
        return errors.New("folder is receive-only")
    }
    // ...
}

Yggdrasil (Go):

func (t *tcp) listen() {
    defer t.listener.Close()
    for {
        conn, err := t.listener.Accept()
        if err != nil {
            t.link.core.log.Errorln("TCP accept error:", err)
            return
        }
        // ...
    }
}

While both projects are written in Go, they serve different purposes. Syncthing focuses on file synchronization, with code handling folder configurations and file system operations. Yggdrasil, being a networking tool, deals with lower-level network operations like TCP connections.

Pros of cjdns

• More mature project with longer development history
• Supports a wider range of platforms, including older systems
• Has a larger and more established community

Cons of cjdns

• More complex configuration and setup process
• Less active development in recent years
• Potentially slower performance due to older codebase

Code Comparison

cjdns (C):

struct Headers_IP6_Header* header = (struct Headers_IP6_Header*) message->bytes;
Assert_true(message->length >= Headers_IP6_Header_SIZE);
uint16_t payloadLength = Endian_bigEndianToHost16(header->payloadLength_be);

Yggdrasil (Go):

ipv6 := packet.GetIPv6Header()
if ipv6 == nil {
    return
}
payloadLength := ipv6.PayloadLength

Both projects aim to create decentralized mesh networks, but Yggdrasil is newer and written in Go, while cjdns is older and primarily in C. Yggdrasil focuses on simplicity and performance, whereas cjdns offers more features and platform support. The code comparison shows cjdns using C structs and manual endianness handling, while Yggdrasil leverages Go's built-in IPv6 packet parsing.

Pros of Kubo

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Supports content-addressed data storage and retrieval
• Offers a robust set of features for distributed file systems

Cons of Kubo

• Higher resource consumption and complexity
• Steeper learning curve for new users
• May be overkill for simple networking tasks

Code Comparison

Yggdrasil-go (configuration example):

{
  "Listen": ["tcp://[::]:0"],
  "AdminListen": "unix:///var/run/yggdrasil.sock",
  "MulticastInterfaces": [".*"],
  "IfName": "auto",
  "NodeInfo": {}
}

Kubo (configuration example):

{
  "Addresses": {
    "Swarm": ["/ip4/0.0.0.0/tcp/4001", "/ip6/::/tcp/4001"],
    "API": "/ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/5001",
    "Gateway": "/ip4/127.0.0.1/tcp/8080"
  },
  "Bootstrap": [
    "/dnsaddr/bootstrap.libp2p.io/p2p/QmNnooDu7bfjPFoTZYxMNLWUQJyrVwtbZg5gBMjTezGAJN"
  ]
}

The code examples show that Yggdrasil-go focuses on network configuration, while Kubo's configuration is more complex, reflecting its broader feature set for distributed file systems.

Pros of Aeternity

• More comprehensive blockchain platform with smart contract capabilities
• Larger community and ecosystem with active development
• Built-in state channels for scalability and off-chain transactions

Cons of Aeternity

• More complex codebase and architecture
• Higher resource requirements for running a full node
• Steeper learning curve for developers and users

Code Comparison

Yggdrasil-go (network configuration):

type NodeConfig struct {
    Listen        []string
    AdminListen   string
    Peers         []string
    AllowedPublicKeys []string
    PublicKey     string
    PrivateKey    string
}

Aeternity (smart contract example):

contract SimpleStorage =
  record state = { data : int }
  entrypoint init(value : int) = { data = value }
  entrypoint get() = state.data
  stateful entrypoint set(value : int) = put(state{ data = value })

Yggdrasil-go focuses on networking and routing, with a simpler configuration structure. Aeternity, being a blockchain platform, includes smart contract functionality and more complex data structures.

Both projects are open-source and actively maintained, but Aeternity has a larger scope and more diverse features, while Yggdrasil-go is more specialized in mesh networking.