That page could have (much) better UX - n.b. that it defaults to showing you only Linux clients; you have to click around to filter by other platforms. It also is outdated and misses many of the newer exciting clients such as http://dittochat.org/ or https://github.com/kiliankoe/nio. A more comprehensive view can be found at https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now/. Updating all this is on the todo list, but writing software >> writing website atm.

One big reason is that the core matrix protocol is incredibly simple to implement. With a good http library, it's a few lines of code to get a basic plaintext client going. However, there is a lot of surface area to cover. So that's how you end up with a lot of 1h/week projects that implement just what the single author cares most about.

> Why are there so many clients with different supported functionality?

If a client has different functionality from the spec, then it simply means that the client is unfinished.

It's not like XMPP where different servers/clients implement different XEPs.

A client either implements the spec and is complete or it does not and it is "beta".

Matrix advertises themselves as an eventually consistent global JSON DB. So it makes sense anyone can build a client and stuff something in there and maybe only their client really handles it.

Seems like a better idea given the failure of XMPP. XMPP was a communications protocol lots of products used like Google Talk, but got dumped when they wanted to do their own proprietary stuff. It feels like Matrix will be less likely to get dumped like that since they are just a general purpose global DB.

because it's an open protocol and that's how open protocols work

Matrix successfully competes with XMPP. It even features a more fractured mess with a lower number of clients in a shorter time span!

It's called "freedom of choice". The alternative is for Facebook, GOSPLAN or Apple to decide what features and UI you get.

Presumably Matrix is the protocol and the clients implement that protocol. Some may be at a further stage of development than others.

"Already"? Is that something that usually happens as a project matures?

Yes? See the fracturing of what HTML browsers supported in the 90s, or what happened to XMPP, for example.

HTML's middle ages were characterised by competing implementations of similar functionality. Inconsistency would be cause for concern, but incompleteness is expected.

Wait, are we complaining about one of the key advantages of open source now?

Is lots of half finished clients rather than one finished client an advantage?

Riot is pretty finished. So you have one fully-baked client, and a bunch of others to choose from if you don't like Riot.

Compare that to Slack, which only has one client, and it gets worse seemingly every day (somehow?).

Yes, the ability to create your own client certainly is. Everyone can implement their client as they see fit, as long as they stay compatible with the API. Naturally, you get many clients with different features.

Besides that, there is a reference implementation (Riot).

Maybe if the one "finished" client doesn't work well for some users, e.g. is cumbersome to use with a screen reader, but there's a "half-finished" client that works well for them.