Pros of Amethyst

• Offers advanced window management and tiling features
• Highly customizable with multiple layout options
• Supports multiple monitors and spaces

Cons of Amethyst

• Steeper learning curve due to complex features
• May consume more system resources
• Requires more setup and configuration

Code Comparison

Amethyst (Swift):

override func layoutManager(_ layoutManager: LayoutManager, frameAssignments: [FrameAssignment]) {
    frameAssignments.forEach { assignment in
        assignment.window.setFrame(assignment.frame, display: true, animate: false)
    }
}

Plash (JavaScript):

ipcMain.on('set-wallpaper', async (event, options) => {
  try {
    await setWallpaper(options);
    event.reply('set-wallpaper-success');
  } catch (error) {
    event.reply('set-wallpaper-error', error);
  }
});

While both projects are for macOS, they serve different purposes. Amethyst is a tiling window manager, offering advanced window management features. Plash, on the other hand, is a simple tool for setting live wallpapers. The code snippets reflect their different functionalities: Amethyst deals with window frame assignments, while Plash handles setting wallpapers through IPC communication.

Pros of yabai

• More comprehensive window management system for macOS
• Supports tiling window management and advanced layouts
• Highly customizable with scripting capabilities

Cons of yabai

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup
• Requires disabling System Integrity Protection (SIP) for full functionality
• May impact system performance due to its extensive features

Code comparison

Yabai configuration example:

yabai -m config layout bsp
yabai -m config top_padding 10
yabai -m config left_padding 10
yabai -m config right_padding 10
yabai -m config bottom_padding 10

Plash doesn't have a direct code comparison as it's primarily a GUI application for setting live wallpapers. It doesn't involve complex configuration files or scripting like yabai.

Summary

Yabai is a powerful window management tool for macOS, offering extensive customization and tiling capabilities. It's ideal for users who want granular control over their workspace layout. However, it requires more setup and system modifications.

Plash, on the other hand, is a simpler application focused on setting live wallpapers using websites. It's more user-friendly and doesn't require advanced configuration, but it lacks the window management features of yabai.

The choice between the two depends on the user's needs: comprehensive window management (yabai) vs. easy-to-use live wallpaper functionality (Plash).

Pros of Rectangle

• Focuses on window management and resizing, providing more comprehensive control over application windows
• Offers keyboard shortcuts and snap areas for quick and precise window positioning
• Supports multiple displays and spaces, enhancing productivity for multi-monitor setups

Cons of Rectangle

• Limited to window management functionality, lacking the ability to set custom wallpapers
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with window management tools
• Doesn't offer dynamic wallpaper features or web content display capabilities

Code Comparison

Rectangle (Swift):

func calculateWindowRect(for screen: NSScreen, visibleFrameOnly: Bool) -> NSRect {
    return visibleFrameOnly ? screen.visibleFrame : screen.frame
}

Plash (Swift):

func setWallpaper(_ image: NSImage) {
    let workspace = NSWorkspace.shared
    workspace.desktopImageOptions = [:]
    try? workspace.setDesktopImageURL(nil, for: NSScreen.main!, options: [:])
}

While both projects are written in Swift, their code focuses on different functionalities. Rectangle's code snippet demonstrates window frame calculation, while Plash's code shows wallpaper setting functionality.

Pros of wallpapper

• Cross-platform support (macOS, Linux, Windows)
• Command-line interface for easy automation and scripting
• Supports creating dynamic wallpapers from multiple images

Cons of wallpapper

• Lacks a graphical user interface, which may be less user-friendly for some
• Requires manual configuration and image preparation
• Limited to static image-based wallpapers

Code Comparison

wallpapper:

let wallpaper = Wallpaper()
wallpaper.inputPath = inputPath
wallpaper.outputPath = outputPath
wallpaper.create()

Plash:

let webView = WKWebView(frame: view.bounds)
webView.load(URLRequest(url: URL(string: "https://example.com")!))
view.addSubview(webView)

Summary

wallpapper is a command-line tool for creating dynamic wallpapers, offering cross-platform support and automation capabilities. However, it lacks a GUI and is limited to static images. Plash, on the other hand, is a macOS-specific app that allows users to set live websites as wallpapers, providing a more interactive and dynamic experience with a user-friendly interface. The code comparison shows wallpapper's focus on image processing, while Plash utilizes web technologies for live wallpapers.

Pros of Aerial

• Offers a wide variety of high-quality video screensavers from Apple TV
• Includes customization options for video playback and display settings
• Supports multiple displays and can show different videos on each screen

Cons of Aerial

• Requires more system resources due to playing high-resolution videos
• Limited to Apple TV aerial footage, less flexibility in content selection
• May consume more bandwidth for downloading new video content

Code Comparison

Aerial (Objective-C):

- (void)loadVideos {
    NSString *videoJSON = [NSString stringWithContentsOfURL:[NSURL URLWithString:AerialAPIEndpoint] encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding error:nil];
    NSArray *videos = [NSJSONSerialization JSONObjectWithData:[videoJSON dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding] options:0 error:nil];
    // Process and store video information
}

Plash (Swift):

func setWallpaper(url: URL) {
    let options: NSDictionary = [kCGDesktopImageAllowClippingKey: true]
    try? NSWorkspace.shared.setDesktopImageURL(url, for: NSScreen.main!, options: options as [NSWorkspace.DesktopImageOptionKey: Any])
}

While both projects aim to enhance the desktop experience, Aerial focuses on providing dynamic video screensavers, whereas Plash allows users to set any website as their desktop wallpaper. Aerial offers a more immersive visual experience but with less customization, while Plash provides greater flexibility in content selection at the cost of less dynamic visuals.

Pros of Dozer

• Offers menu bar customization and organization features
• Provides a more comprehensive set of tools for managing menu bar items
• Includes options for hiding specific menu bar icons

Cons of Dozer

• May have a steeper learning curve due to more complex features
• Potentially higher resource usage compared to Plash's lightweight approach
• Less focused on wallpaper-related functionality

Code Comparison

Dozer (Objective-C):

- (void)toggleHidden {
    if (self.isHidden) {
        [self unhide];
    } else {
        [self hide];
    }
}

Plash (Swift):

func setWallpaper(_ url: URL) {
    guard let screen = NSScreen.main else { return }
    try? NSWorkspace.shared.setDesktopImageURL(url, for: screen)
}

While both projects are macOS utilities, they serve different purposes. Dozer focuses on menu bar management and customization, offering features to organize and hide menu bar items. Plash, on the other hand, is primarily designed for setting web pages as desktop wallpapers.

The code snippets highlight this difference in focus. Dozer's code demonstrates functionality for toggling the visibility of menu bar items, while Plash's code shows how it sets a wallpaper using a URL.