Pros of Bubbletea

• More comprehensive framework for building terminal user interfaces
• Provides a robust event-driven architecture
• Offers greater flexibility for complex applications

Cons of Bubbletea

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more boilerplate code for simple applications
• May be overkill for small, straightforward projects

Code Comparison

Bubbles (creating a simple progress bar):

progress := bubbles.NewProgress()
progress.ShowPercentage = true
progress.Width = 50
progress.SetPercent(0.5)

Bubbletea (creating a simple progress bar):

type model struct {
    progress float64
}

func (m model) View() string {
    return fmt.Sprintf("Progress: %.0f%%", m.progress*100)
}

Bubbles provides ready-to-use components like progress bars, while Bubbletea requires more custom implementation but offers greater control over the application's structure and behavior.

Pros of tview

• More comprehensive set of UI components and layouts
• Better suited for complex, full-screen terminal applications
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of tview

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less focus on individual, reusable components
• Heavier dependency footprint

Code Comparison

tview example:

app := tview.NewApplication()
box := tview.NewBox().SetBorder(true).SetTitle("Hello, world!")
app.SetRoot(box, true).Run()

Bubbles example:

m := model{list: list.New([]list.Item{}, list.NewDefaultDelegate(), 0, 0)}
p := tea.NewProgram(m)
if _, err := p.Run(); err != nil {
    fmt.Println("Error running program:", err)
}

Key Differences

• tview focuses on building complete applications with a rich set of widgets
• Bubbles provides modular components that can be easily combined
• tview uses a more traditional object-oriented approach
• Bubbles follows a more functional and composable design pattern

Use Cases

• Choose tview for complex, full-screen terminal applications with multiple layouts
• Opt for Bubbles when building smaller CLI tools or when you need highly customizable components

Both libraries offer powerful tools for creating terminal user interfaces, but they cater to different development styles and project requirements.

Pros of tcell

• Lower-level library providing more fine-grained control over terminal operations
• Broader platform support, including Windows
• More mature and established project with a larger user base

Cons of tcell

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level nature
• Requires more boilerplate code to create interactive terminal applications
• Less opinionated, which may lead to more inconsistent user interfaces

Code Comparison

tcell:

screen, _ := tcell.NewScreen()
screen.Init()
defer screen.Fini()

screen.SetContent(0, 0, 'H', nil, tcell.StyleDefault)
screen.Show()

bubbles:

m := model{}
p := tea.NewProgram(m)
if _, err := p.Run(); err != nil {
    fmt.Printf("Alas, there's been an error: %v", err)
}

Summary

tcell is a lower-level terminal library offering more control and broader platform support, while bubbles provides a higher-level, more opinionated approach for creating interactive terminal user interfaces. tcell may be preferred for projects requiring fine-grained control or cross-platform compatibility, while bubbles excels in rapid development of consistent, interactive TUIs with less boilerplate code.

Pros of gocui

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Provides lower-level control over the terminal UI
• Better suited for complex, full-screen terminal applications

Cons of gocui

• Steeper learning curve and more complex API
• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• Lacks some modern features and conveniences found in Bubbles

Code Comparison

gocui example:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()

g.SetManagerFunc(layout)

Bubbles example:

m := model{list: list.New(items, list.NewDefaultDelegate(), 0, 0)}
p := tea.NewProgram(m)
if _, err := p.Run(); err != nil {
    fmt.Println("Error running program:", err)
    os.Exit(1)
}

Both libraries offer ways to create terminal user interfaces in Go, but they differ in their approach and level of abstraction. gocui provides more fine-grained control over the UI elements, while Bubbles offers a higher-level, more user-friendly API with pre-built components. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preferred level of control over the UI implementation.

Pros of termui

• More comprehensive set of UI components out-of-the-box
• Established project with a longer history and larger community
• Supports both mouse and keyboard input

Cons of termui

• Less active development and maintenance
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Limited flexibility for custom component creation

Code Comparison

termui:

ui.Init()
p := widgets.NewParagraph()
p.Text = "Hello World!"
ui.Render(p)

bubbles:

p := paragraph.New()
p.SetContent("Hello World!")
m := model{paragraph: p}
tea.NewProgram(m).Run()

Summary

termui offers a more comprehensive set of UI components and has a longer history in the Go terminal UI ecosystem. It provides built-in support for both mouse and keyboard input, which can be advantageous for certain applications.

On the other hand, bubbles, part of the Charm framework, focuses on simplicity and composability. It has a more active development cycle and is designed to be more flexible for creating custom components. bubbles also integrates seamlessly with other Charm tools, making it a good choice for developers already using the Charm ecosystem.

The code comparison shows that termui has a slightly more straightforward initialization process, while bubbles requires setting up a model and program structure. This reflects bubbles' focus on composability and state management, which can lead to more maintainable code in complex applications.

Pros of termbox-go

• Lower-level API, offering more fine-grained control over terminal output
• Lightweight and minimal dependencies
• Cross-platform support for various terminal types

Cons of termbox-go

• Requires more boilerplate code for common UI elements
• Less intuitive for creating complex, interactive terminal interfaces
• Limited built-in widgets and components

Code Comparison

termbox-go:

err := termbox.Init()
if err != nil {
    panic(err)
}
defer termbox.Close()
termbox.SetOutputMode(termbox.Output256)

bubbles:

p := tea.NewProgram(initialModel())
if err := p.Start(); err != nil {
    fmt.Printf("Alas, there's been an error: %v", err)
    os.Exit(1)
}

Summary

termbox-go provides a lower-level API for terminal manipulation, offering more control but requiring more code for common UI elements. It's lightweight and cross-platform but lacks built-in widgets.

bubbles, part of the Charm framework, offers a higher-level API with pre-built components and a more intuitive approach to creating interactive terminal UIs. It simplifies development but may have a steeper learning curve for those familiar with lower-level APIs.

Choose termbox-go for fine-grained control and minimal dependencies, or bubbles for rapid development of feature-rich terminal applications with less boilerplate code.