Pros of Fyne

• More active development and larger community
• Cross-platform support for mobile (iOS and Android)
• Rich set of widgets and layout options

Cons of Fyne

• Larger binary size due to bundled dependencies
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to Go

Code Comparison

ui:

button := ui.NewButton("Click Me")
button.OnClicked(func(*ui.Button) {
    ui.MsgBox(mainwin, "Information", "You clicked the button!")
})

Fyne:

button := widget.NewButton("Click Me", func() {
    dialog.ShowInformation("Information", "You clicked the button!", myWindow)
})

Summary

Fyne offers a more comprehensive and actively maintained solution for cross-platform GUI development in Go, including mobile support. It provides a rich set of widgets and layout options but comes with a larger binary size and a steeper learning curve. ui, on the other hand, is simpler and more lightweight but has limited features and platform support. The code comparison shows that both libraries have similar syntax for creating buttons and handling events, with Fyne using a more modern, closure-based approach for event handling.

Pros of qt

• More comprehensive and feature-rich GUI toolkit
• Better cross-platform support, including mobile platforms
• Larger community and ecosystem

Cons of qt

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Larger binary size and resource footprint
• Requires C++ knowledge for advanced features

Code Comparison

ui:

window := ui.NewWindow("Hello", 200, 100, false)
button := ui.NewButton("Click Me")
window.SetChild(button)
window.OnClosing(func(*ui.Window) bool {
    ui.Quit()
    return true
})

qt:

app := widgets.NewQApplication(len(os.Args), os.Args)
window := widgets.NewQMainWindow(nil, 0)
button := widgets.NewQPushButton2("Click Me", nil)
window.SetCentralWidget(button)
window.SetFixedSize2(200, 100)
window.Show()
app.Exec()

Both libraries provide similar functionality for creating basic GUI applications, but qt offers more advanced features and customization options. ui focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while qt provides a more comprehensive toolkit at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of govcl

• Offers a wider range of UI components and controls
• Provides better support for Windows-specific features
• Allows for more detailed customization of UI elements

Cons of govcl

• Less cross-platform compatibility compared to ui
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger dependency footprint

Code Comparison

ui:

window := ui.NewWindow("Hello", 200, 100, false)
button := ui.NewButton("Click Me")
window.SetChild(button)
window.OnClosing(func(*ui.Window) bool {
    ui.Quit()
    return true
})

govcl:

form := vcl.Application.CreateForm()
form.SetCaption("Hello")
form.SetWidth(200)
form.SetHeight(100)
button := vcl.NewButton(form)
button.SetParent(form)
button.SetCaption("Click Me")

Both libraries aim to provide GUI capabilities for Go applications, but they differ in their approach and feature set. ui focuses on simplicity and cross-platform compatibility, while govcl offers more extensive Windows-specific features and customization options. The code comparison demonstrates that ui has a more concise syntax, while govcl provides more granular control over UI elements. Developers should choose based on their specific requirements, target platforms, and desired level of customization.

Pros of go-sciter

• Rich set of UI controls and styling options using HTML/CSS
• Supports multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux) with native look and feel
• Smaller executable size due to embedded rendering engine

Cons of go-sciter

• Requires learning Sciter-specific markup and scripting
• Less native integration with Go compared to pure Go solutions
• Potential licensing concerns for commercial applications

Code Comparison

go-sciter example:

w, _ := sciter.CreateWindow(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
w.LoadFile("hello.html")
w.SetTitle("Hello")
w.Show()
w.Run()

ui example:

window := ui.NewWindow("Hello", 200, 100, false)
button := ui.NewButton("Click Me")
window.SetChild(button)
window.OnClosing(func(*ui.Window) bool {
    ui.Quit()
    return true
})
ui.Main(window)

Summary

go-sciter offers a more feature-rich UI development experience with HTML/CSS styling, while ui provides a simpler, pure Go approach. go-sciter is better suited for complex UIs with custom styling, whereas ui is ideal for straightforward, native-looking applications. The choice between them depends on the project's requirements, desired look and feel, and the developer's preference for working with HTML/CSS versus pure Go code.

Pros of Lorca

• Uses web technologies (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) for UI, allowing for more flexible and familiar design
• Lightweight and doesn't require CGo, making it easier to cross-compile
• Supports two-way JavaScript bindings for seamless integration between Go and JavaScript

Cons of Lorca

• Requires a Chrome/Chromium installation on the user's system
• Limited to platforms where Chrome is available
• May have larger memory footprint due to using a full browser engine

Code Comparison

Lorca:

ui, _ := lorca.New("", "", 480, 320)
defer ui.Close()
ui.Bind("add", func(a, b int) int { return a + b })
ui.Load("data:text/html,<html><body><h1>Hello World</h1></body></html>")
<-ui.Done()

UI:

window := ui.NewWindow("Hello", 200, 100, false)
button := ui.NewButton("Click Me")
window.SetChild(button)
window.OnClosing(func(*ui.Window) bool {
    ui.Quit()
    return true
})
ui.Main(window)

The Lorca example demonstrates its web-based approach and JavaScript binding, while the UI example shows its native widget-based design. Lorca offers more flexibility in UI design but requires Chrome, whereas UI provides a more native look and feel without external dependencies.