HandyControl

Pros of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• More comprehensive implementation of Material Design principles
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better documentation and examples

Cons of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Potentially heavier resource usage in some scenarios
• Less flexibility for custom styling outside of Material Design

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<materialDesign:Card Padding="32" Margin="16">
    <TextBlock Style="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignHeadline6TextBlock}">
        Hello World
    </TextBlock>
</materialDesign:Card>

HandyControl:

<hc:Card Margin="16">
    <TextBlock Style="{StaticResource TextBlockLargeBold}" 
               Margin="32">
        Hello World
    </TextBlock>
</hc:Card>

Both libraries offer similar components, but MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit adheres more strictly to Material Design guidelines, while HandyControl provides a broader range of styles and more flexibility in customization. MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit is better suited for projects aiming for a pure Material Design look, while HandyControl might be preferable for applications requiring a mix of styles or more custom designs.

Pros of Avalonia

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, WebAssembly)
• XAML-based UI framework with modern features
• Active development and community support

Cons of Avalonia

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to XAML
• Smaller ecosystem compared to WPF or Windows Forms

Code Comparison

HandyControl (XAML):

<hc:Window x:Class="HandyControlDemo.MainWindow"
           xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
           xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
           xmlns:hc="https://handyorg.github.io/handycontrol">
    <hc:SimplePanel>
        <hc:Button Content="Click Me" />
    </hc:SimplePanel>
</hc:Window>

Avalonia (XAML):

<Window xmlns="https://github.com/avaloniaui"
        xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
        x:Class="AvaloniaApplication.MainWindow">
    <Panel>
        <Button Content="Click Me" />
    </Panel>
</Window>

Summary

Avalonia offers cross-platform development capabilities and a modern XAML-based approach, making it suitable for developers looking to create applications that run on multiple operating systems. However, it may have a steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with XAML. HandyControl, on the other hand, is primarily focused on enhancing WPF applications with additional controls and styles, making it more accessible for developers already working with WPF but limiting its cross-platform potential.

Pros of MahApps.Metro

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Wider range of controls and features out-of-the-box

Cons of MahApps.Metro

• Heavier and potentially slower performance compared to HandyControl
• Less frequent updates and slower development cycle
• More opinionated design, which may not suit all projects

Code Comparison

MahApps.Metro:

<Controls:MetroWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:Controls="http://metro.mahapps.com/winfx/xaml/controls"
    Title="MahApps.Metro Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
        <Controls:WindowCommands>
            <Button Content="Settings" />
        </Controls:WindowCommands>
    </Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
</Controls:MetroWindow>

HandyControl:

<hc:Window x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:hc="https://handyorg.github.io/handycontrol"
    Title="HandyControl Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <hc:Window.NonClientAreaContent>
        <Button Content="Settings" HorizontalAlignment="Right" />
    </hc:Window.NonClientAreaContent>
</hc:Window>

Both libraries offer similar functionality for creating modern Windows applications, but with different approaches to styling and control implementation.

Pros of Dragablz

• Specialized in tab control and docking functionality
• Lightweight and focused on specific UI elements
• Highly customizable tab layouts and behaviors

Cons of Dragablz

• Limited scope compared to HandyControl's comprehensive UI toolkit
• Less frequent updates and maintenance
• Smaller community and fewer contributors

Code Comparison

HandyControl example (Button):

<hc:Button Content="Click Me" 
           Style="{StaticResource ButtonPrimary}"
           hc:IconElement.Geometry="{StaticResource IconGeometryCheck}"/>

Dragablz example (TabControl):

<dragablz:TabablzControl>
    <dragablz:TabablzControl.InterTabController>
        <dragablz:InterTabController />
    </dragablz:TabablzControl.InterTabController>
    <TabItem Header="Tab No. 1" />
    <TabItem Header="Tab No. 2" />
</dragablz:TabablzControl>

HandyControl offers a wider range of UI controls and styles, making it suitable for comprehensive application development. Dragablz, on the other hand, excels in providing advanced tab and docking features, making it ideal for applications requiring complex tab management. While HandyControl provides a more holistic approach to UI design, Dragablz offers deeper customization for specific tab-related functionalities.

Pros of MUI

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better support for responsive design

Cons of MUI

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture
• Larger file size and potential performance impact
• Less native Windows-like appearance compared to HandyControl

Code Comparison

HandyControl:

<hc:SimplePanel>
    <hc:Card>
        <TextBlock Text="Hello, HandyControl!" />
    </hc:Card>
</hc:SimplePanel>

MUI:

<mui:ModernWindow>
    <mui:ModernFrame>
        <TextBlock Text="Hello, MUI!" />
    </mui:ModernFrame>
</mui:ModernWindow>

Both libraries offer custom controls and styling options for WPF applications. HandyControl focuses on providing a native Windows look and feel, while MUI offers a more modern and customizable interface. HandyControl's SimplePanel and Card controls are straightforward to use, whereas MUI's ModernWindow and ModernFrame provide a more structured layout approach. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, desired aesthetics, and development team preferences.

Pros of MaterialSkin

• Focused specifically on Material Design, providing a more authentic Material look
• Simpler API and easier to implement for basic Material Design interfaces
• Lighter weight library with fewer dependencies

Cons of MaterialSkin

• Less comprehensive control set compared to HandyControl
• Limited customization options beyond Material Design guidelines
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

MaterialSkin:

MaterialSkinManager.Instance.AddFormToManage(this);
MaterialSkinManager.Instance.Theme = MaterialSkinManager.Themes.LIGHT;
MaterialSkinManager.Instance.ColorScheme = new ColorScheme(Primary.Blue400, Primary.Blue500, Primary.Blue500, Accent.LightBlue200, TextShade.WHITE);

HandyControl:

<hc:Window x:Class="HandyControlDemo.MainWindow"
           xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
           xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
           xmlns:hc="https://handyorg.github.io/handycontrol"
           Style="{StaticResource WindowPrimary}"
           Title="MainWindow" Height="450" Width="800">
</hc:Window>

MaterialSkin focuses on programmatic setup of Material Design themes, while HandyControl uses XAML-based styling and offers a wider range of controls and customization options. HandyControl provides a more comprehensive UI toolkit, while MaterialSkin specializes in Material Design implementation for Windows Forms applications.