Pros of readline

• More mature and widely used in Go projects
• Supports multi-line editing and history navigation
• Lightweight with minimal dependencies

Cons of readline

• Less feature-rich compared to go-prompt
• Limited customization options for prompt appearance
• Lacks built-in support for syntax highlighting

Code Comparison

readline:

rl, err := readline.New("> ")
if err != nil {
    panic(err)
}
defer rl.Close()

go-prompt:

p := prompt.New(
    executor,
    completer,
    prompt.OptionPrefix(">>> "),
)
p.Run()

Key Differences

• readline focuses on providing a simple, lightweight readline implementation
• go-prompt offers more advanced features like syntax highlighting and custom completions
• readline uses a more traditional approach, while go-prompt provides a higher-level abstraction

Use Cases

• readline: Ideal for simple CLI applications or when lightweight dependencies are crucial
• go-prompt: Better suited for complex interactive prompts with rich features and customization

Community and Maintenance

• readline: Larger user base and longer history in the Go ecosystem
• go-prompt: Active development with frequent updates and feature additions

Performance

• readline: Generally faster due to its simplicity and focus on core functionality
• go-prompt: May have slightly higher overhead due to additional features

Pros of promptui

• More comprehensive input options, including select lists and confirmation prompts
• Built-in validation and transformation of user input
• Simpler API for basic use cases

Cons of promptui

• Less flexible for complex, multi-line prompts
• Fewer customization options for prompt appearance
• No built-in support for auto-completion

Code Comparison

promptui example:

prompt := promptui.Select{
    Label: "Select Day",
    Items: []string{"Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday", "Thursday", "Friday"},
}
_, result, err := prompt.Run()

go-prompt example:

p := prompt.New(
    executor,
    completer,
    prompt.OptionPrefix(">>> "),
    prompt.OptionTitle("My CLI"),
)
p.Run()

Summary

promptui offers a more user-friendly API for common prompt types, making it easier to create simple CLI interfaces quickly. It includes built-in validation and transformation features, which can save development time.

go-prompt, on the other hand, provides more flexibility for complex prompts and offers powerful auto-completion capabilities. It's better suited for creating interactive shells or command-line applications that require advanced features.

The choice between these libraries depends on the specific requirements of your project. If you need a quick and easy way to add basic prompts to your CLI, promptui might be the better choice. For more complex, interactive CLI applications, especially those requiring auto-completion, go-prompt could be more suitable.

Pros of survey

• More comprehensive set of question types (e.g., multi-select, password input)
• Better support for complex survey-style interactions
• Easier to create multi-step questionnaires

Cons of survey

• Less suitable for creating interactive command-line interfaces
• May have a steeper learning curve for simple prompts
• Lacks some advanced features like syntax highlighting

Code Comparison

survey:

prompt := &survey.Input{
    Message: "Enter your name:",
}
survey.AskOne(prompt, &name)

go-prompt:

name := prompt.Input("Enter your name: ", completer)

Summary

survey is better suited for creating complex questionnaires and surveys, offering a wide range of question types. It excels in multi-step interactions but may be overkill for simple prompts. go-prompt, on the other hand, is more focused on creating interactive command-line interfaces with features like auto-completion and syntax highlighting. It's generally easier to use for basic prompts but lacks some of the advanced survey capabilities of survey.

Choose survey for comprehensive questionnaires and survey-style applications, while go-prompt is ideal for interactive CLI tools with simpler prompt requirements.

Pros of ishell

• More feature-rich, offering built-in command history, custom prompts, and multiline input
• Provides a higher-level abstraction for building interactive shells
• Includes support for subcommands and nested command structures

Cons of ishell

• Less focused on auto-completion functionality compared to go-prompt
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its more comprehensive feature set
• Potentially higher memory footprint due to additional features

Code Comparison

ishell:

shell := ishell.New()
shell.AddCmd(&ishell.Cmd{
    Name: "greet",
    Help: "greet user",
    Func: func(c *ishell.Context) {
        c.Println("Hello, world!")
    },
})
shell.Run()

go-prompt:

p := prompt.New(
    executor,
    completer,
    prompt.OptionPrefix(">>> "),
)
p.Run()

The ishell example demonstrates its command-based structure, while go-prompt showcases its simpler setup focused on completion and execution functions.

Pros of liner

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing on basic line editing functionality
• Better suited for simpler CLI applications with minimal prompt requirements
• Easier to integrate into existing projects due to its simplicity

Cons of liner

• Limited features compared to go-prompt, lacking advanced completion and suggestion capabilities
• Less customizable and flexible for complex prompt scenarios
• May require more manual implementation for advanced features

Code Comparison

liner:

line, err := liner.NewLiner()
defer line.Close()
line.SetCtrlCAborts(true)

input, err := line.Prompt("Enter command: ")

go-prompt:

p := prompt.New(
    executor,
    completer,
    prompt.OptionPrefix(">>> "),
    prompt.OptionTitle("My CLI"),
)
p.Run()

Summary

liner is a simpler, lightweight option for basic line editing in CLI applications. It's easier to integrate but lacks advanced features. go-prompt offers more robust functionality, including sophisticated completion and suggestion capabilities, making it better suited for complex CLI tools. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of prompt functionality needed.