Pros of imgui

• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Cross-platform support with minimal dependencies

Cons of imgui

• Limited to immediate mode GUI, which may not suit all use cases
• Requires more manual management of UI state
• Less comprehensive feature set compared to full game engines

Code Comparison

imgui:

ImGui::Begin("Hello, world!");
if (ImGui::Button("Click me"))
    clicked++;
ImGui::Text("Button clicked %d times", clicked);
ImGui::End();

Hazel:

class ExampleLayer : public Hazel::Layer {
public:
    void OnImGuiRender() override {
        ImGui::Begin("Hello, world!");
        if (ImGui::Button("Click me"))
            clicked++;
        ImGui::Text("Button clicked %d times", clicked);
        ImGui::End();
    }
private:
    int clicked = 0;
};

Summary

imgui is a lightweight, immediate mode GUI library, while Hazel is a more comprehensive game engine. imgui excels in simplicity and ease of integration, making it ideal for quick prototyping or adding debug interfaces to existing projects. Hazel, on the other hand, provides a fuller set of game development tools and abstractions, which may be more suitable for larger-scale projects or those requiring more advanced features beyond just GUI.

Pros of raylib

• More mature and stable project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Simpler API design, making it easier for beginners to get started
• Cross-platform support for multiple programming languages (C, C++, Lua, Python, etc.)

Cons of raylib

• Less flexible for advanced game engine features and customization
• Limited built-in support for modern rendering techniques and advanced graphics features
• Lacks a robust entity-component system for game object management

Code Comparison

raylib:

#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;
}

Hazel:

#include "Hazel.h"

class ExampleLayer : public Hazel::Layer
{
public:
    void OnUpdate() override
    {
        HZ_INFO("ExampleLayer::Update");
    }

    void OnEvent(Hazel::Event& event) override
    {
        HZ_TRACE("{0}", event);
    }
};

class Sandbox : public Hazel::Application
{
public:
    Sandbox()
    {
        PushLayer(new ExampleLayer());
    }

    ~Sandbox()
    {
    }
};

Hazel::Application* Hazel::CreateApplication()
{
    return new Sandbox();
}

Pros of EnTT

• Highly performant and lightweight Entity Component System (ECS)
• More flexible and customizable for various game engine architectures
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of EnTT

• Steeper learning curve due to its template-heavy design
• Less beginner-friendly compared to Hazel's more structured approach
• Requires more manual setup and integration with other systems

Code Comparison

EnTT:

entt::registry registry;
auto entity = registry.create();
registry.emplace<Position>(entity, 0, 0);
registry.emplace<Velocity>(entity, 1, 1);

Hazel:

Entity entity = CreateEntity();
entity.AddComponent<TransformComponent>();
entity.AddComponent<SpriteRendererComponent>();

Summary

EnTT is a powerful and flexible ECS library, while Hazel is a more comprehensive game engine framework. EnTT excels in performance and customization but requires more expertise to use effectively. Hazel offers a more structured and beginner-friendly approach but may be less flexible for advanced users. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's experience level.

Pros of spdlog

• Focused solely on logging, providing a lightweight and efficient solution
• Extensive feature set including asynchronous logging and custom formatting
• Wide platform support and easy integration into existing projects

Cons of spdlog

• Limited to logging functionality, not a full game engine framework
• Lacks built-in GUI or rendering capabilities
• May require additional libraries for more complex game development tasks

Code Comparison

spdlog:

#include "spdlog/spdlog.h"

int main() {
    spdlog::info("Welcome to spdlog!");
    spdlog::error("An error message with arg: {}", 42);
}

Hazel:

#include "Hazel.h"

class ExampleLayer : public Hazel::Layer {
public:
    void OnUpdate() override {
        HZ_INFO("ExampleLayer::Update");
    }
};

Summary

spdlog is a specialized logging library offering efficient and feature-rich logging capabilities. Hazel, on the other hand, is a comprehensive game engine framework that includes logging as part of its broader functionality. While spdlog excels in its focused approach to logging, Hazel provides a more complete solution for game development, including rendering, input handling, and other essential features. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of abstraction for game development tasks.

Pros of GLFW

• Mature and widely adopted cross-platform library for OpenGL, OpenGL ES, and Vulkan development
• Lightweight and focused solely on window creation, input handling, and context management
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of GLFW

• Limited to low-level windowing and input functionality
• Requires additional libraries for more advanced features like rendering and audio

Code Comparison

GLFW (basic window creation):

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main() {
    glfwInit();
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(800, 600, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
    while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
        glfwSwapBuffers(window);
    }
    glfwTerminate();
}

Hazel (basic application setup):

#include "Hazel.h"

class ExampleLayer : public Hazel::Layer {
public:
    void OnUpdate() override {
        // Update logic
    }
};

class SandboxApp : public Hazel::Application {
public:
    SandboxApp() {
        PushLayer(new ExampleLayer());
    }
};

Summary

GLFW is a lightweight, cross-platform library focused on window creation and input handling, while Hazel is a more comprehensive game engine framework built on top of GLFW. GLFW provides lower-level control but requires additional libraries for advanced features, whereas Hazel offers a higher-level abstraction with built-in functionality for game development.

Pros of glad

• Focused solely on OpenGL loader generation, making it lightweight and easy to integrate
• Supports multiple languages (C, C++, D, Nim, Pascal)
• Actively maintained with frequent updates

Cons of glad

• Limited scope compared to Hazel's full game engine functionality
• Requires additional libraries and setup for a complete graphics pipeline
• Less comprehensive documentation and examples

Code Comparison

Hazel (initializing a window):

auto window = Hazel::CreateScope<Hazel::Window>(Hazel::WindowProps("Hazel App"));
Hazel::Application::Get().PushLayer(new ExampleLayer());

glad (loading OpenGL functions):

if (!gladLoadGLLoader((GLADloadproc)glfwGetProcAddress)) {
    std::cout << "Failed to initialize GLAD" << std::endl;
    return -1;
}

Summary

Hazel is a comprehensive game engine with a wide range of features, while glad is a focused OpenGL loader generator. Hazel provides a higher-level abstraction for game development, whereas glad offers more flexibility for custom graphics applications. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements and the desired level of control over the graphics pipeline.