lwjgl3

Pros of GLFW

• Lightweight and focused solely on window creation and input handling
• Easier to integrate into existing C/C++ projects
• More straightforward API with less abstraction

Cons of GLFW

• Limited to OpenGL and Vulkan, while LWJGL3 supports more APIs
• Lacks additional features like audio support that LWJGL3 provides
• Requires manual binding for languages other than C/C++

Code Comparison

GLFW (C):

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main() {
    glfwInit();
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
    while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
        glfwSwapBuffers(window);
    }
}

LWJGL3 (Java):

import org.lwjgl.glfw.GLFW;

public class Main {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        GLFW.glfwInit();
        long window = GLFW.glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "LWJGL3 Window", 0, 0);
        while (!GLFW.glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
            GLFW.glfwSwapBuffers(window);
        }
    }
}

Both libraries provide similar functionality for window creation and management, but LWJGL3 wraps GLFW (among other libraries) in a Java-friendly interface, while GLFW is a standalone C library focused on core windowing and input functionality.

Pros of ImGui

• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Immediate mode GUI, allowing for rapid prototyping and development
• Cross-platform compatibility with minimal dependencies

Cons of ImGui

• Limited to 2D user interfaces, lacking 3D rendering capabilities
• Requires more manual management of UI state compared to retained mode GUIs
• Less extensive ecosystem and tooling support

Code Comparison

ImGui (C++):

ImGui::Begin("Hello, world!");
ImGui::Text("This is some useful text.");
if (ImGui::Button("Save"))
    MySaveFunction();
ImGui::End();

LWJGL3 (Java):

try (MemoryStack stack = stackPush()) {
    IntBuffer pWidth = stack.mallocInt(1);
    IntBuffer pHeight = stack.mallocInt(1);
    glfwGetWindowSize(window, pWidth, pHeight);
    glViewport(0, 0, pWidth.get(0), pHeight.get(0));
}

Summary

ImGui is a lightweight, immediate mode GUI library focused on simplicity and rapid development, while LWJGL3 is a comprehensive Java library for OpenGL, OpenAL, and OpenCL development. ImGui excels in quick prototyping and simple 2D interfaces, whereas LWJGL3 offers more extensive 3D rendering capabilities and a broader range of low-level graphics and audio functionalities.

Pros of raylib

• Simpler API and easier to learn for beginners
• Cross-platform support with a single codebase
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of raylib

• Less flexible and customizable than LWJGL
• Limited to C programming language (though bindings exist for other languages)
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to LWJGL

Code Comparison

raylib example:

#include "raylib.h"

int main(void)
{
    InitWindow(800, 450, "raylib [core] example - basic window");
    while (!WindowShouldClose())
    {
        BeginDrawing();
            ClearBackground(RAYWHITE);
            DrawText("Congrats! You created your first window!", 190, 200, 20, LIGHTGRAY);
        EndDrawing();
    }
    CloseWindow();
    return 0;
}

LWJGL example:

import org.lwjgl.*;
import org.lwjgl.glfw.*;
import org.lwjgl.opengl.*;

import static org.lwjgl.glfw.GLFW.*;
import static org.lwjgl.opengl.GL11.*;
import static org.lwjgl.system.MemoryUtil.*;

public class HelloWorld {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        GLFWErrorCallback.createPrint(System.err).set();
        if (!glfwInit())
            throw new IllegalStateException("Unable to initialize GLFW");
        // ... (window creation and rendering code)
    }
}

The raylib example demonstrates its simplicity, while the LWJGL example shows more verbose setup but offers greater flexibility.

Pros of SDL

• Cross-platform support for multiple operating systems and architectures
• Extensive multimedia capabilities, including audio, input, and graphics
• Large and active community with extensive documentation and resources

Cons of SDL

• C-based API, which may be less intuitive for Java developers
• Requires manual memory management and pointer handling
• Limited built-in support for modern graphics APIs like Vulkan

Code Comparison

SDL (C):

SDL_Window* window = SDL_CreateWindow("SDL Window", SDL_WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, SDL_WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, 800, 600, SDL_WINDOW_SHOWN);
SDL_Renderer* renderer = SDL_CreateRenderer(window, -1, SDL_RENDERER_ACCELERATED);
SDL_RenderClear(renderer);
SDL_RenderPresent(renderer);

LWJGL (Java):

long window = glfwCreateWindow(800, 600, "LWJGL Window", NULL, NULL);
glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);
GL.createCapabilities();
glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);
glfwSwapBuffers(window);

LWJGL provides a more Java-centric approach with object-oriented design and automatic memory management. It offers direct bindings to OpenGL, Vulkan, and other low-level APIs, making it well-suited for Java developers working on high-performance graphics applications. However, SDL's broader multimedia support and extensive cross-platform compatibility make it a versatile choice for general-purpose game development and multimedia applications across various programming languages.

Pros of Hazel

• Higher-level game engine framework, providing more built-in functionality
• Designed specifically for game development, with a focus on ease of use
• Includes a visual editor for scene management and asset manipulation

Cons of Hazel

• Less flexible and customizable compared to LWJGL's low-level approach
• Smaller community and ecosystem, potentially leading to fewer resources and third-party integrations
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers who prefer working closer to the hardware

Code Comparison

Hazel (C++):

class ExampleLayer : public Hazel::Layer {
public:
    void OnUpdate() override {
        Hazel::Renderer2D::BeginScene(m_Camera);
        Hazel::Renderer2D::DrawQuad({0.0f, 0.0f}, {1.0f, 1.0f}, {1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f});
        Hazel::Renderer2D::EndScene();
    }
};

LWJGL (Java):

public class Example {
    public void render() {
        glBegin(GL_QUADS);
        glColor3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
        glVertex2f(0.0f, 0.0f);
        glVertex2f(1.0f, 0.0f);
        glVertex2f(1.0f, 1.0f);
        glVertex2f(0.0f, 1.0f);
        glEnd();
    }
}

Pros of FNA

• Designed specifically for game development, with a focus on XNA compatibility
• Simpler API, making it easier for beginners to get started
• Cross-platform support with a consistent API across different operating systems

Cons of FNA

• More limited in scope compared to LWJGL's broader functionality
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to LWJGL
• Less frequent updates and potentially slower adoption of new technologies

Code Comparison

FNA (C#):

protected override void Draw(GameTime gameTime)
{
    GraphicsDevice.Clear(Color.CornflowerBlue);
    spriteBatch.Begin();
    spriteBatch.Draw(texture, position, Color.White);
    spriteBatch.End();
    base.Draw(gameTime);
}

LWJGL (Java):

glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT);
glUseProgram(shaderProgram);
glBindVertexArray(vao);
glDrawArrays(GL_TRIANGLES, 0, 3);
glBindVertexArray(0);

FNA provides a higher-level API for game development, while LWJGL offers more low-level control over graphics operations. FNA's code is more concise and game-oriented, whereas LWJGL requires more explicit OpenGL calls.