gotop

Pros of Glances

• More comprehensive system monitoring, including network, disk I/O, and processes
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, Windows)
• Extensible plugin system for custom metrics

Cons of Glances

• Heavier resource usage due to more features
• More complex configuration and setup
• Less focus on visual aesthetics compared to Gotop

Code Comparison

Gotop (main.go):

func main() {
    if err := app.Run(os.Args); err != nil {
        log.Fatal(err)
    }
}

Glances (glances.py):

def main():
    args = init_args()
    glances_processes = GlancesProcesses()
    glances_monitor = GlancesMonitor(config=args.config)
    glances_stats = GlancesStats(config=args.config,
                                 args=args,
                                 processes=glances_processes,
                                 monitor=glances_monitor)

The code comparison shows that Glances has a more complex initialization process, reflecting its broader feature set, while Gotop has a simpler main function, focusing on a streamlined experience.

Pros of btop

• More feature-rich with advanced CPU, memory, network, and process monitoring
• Highly customizable interface with themes and color schemes
• Cross-platform support (Linux, macOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD)

Cons of btop

• Higher resource usage due to more complex features
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and customization

Code Comparison

btop (C++):

void Cpu::draw(int h, bool force) {
    if (h < 1) return;
    if (force) redraw = true;
    if (not redraw and not Config::getB("cpu_bottom")) return;
    // ... (implementation details)
}

gotop (Go):

func (self *Cpu) Update() {
    self.Percent = cpuPercent(time.Second, false)
    for i := range self.Percent {
        self.Data[i] = int(self.Percent[i])
    }
}

Summary

btop offers a more comprehensive system monitoring solution with advanced features and customization options, while gotop provides a simpler, lightweight alternative. btop's C++ implementation allows for more complex functionality, but may consume more resources. gotop's Go-based approach focuses on simplicity and efficiency. Choose btop for detailed system analysis and customization, or gotop for a straightforward, resource-friendly monitoring tool.

Pros of htop

• More mature and widely used project with a larger community
• Offers more detailed system information and process management capabilities
• Supports a wider range of Unix-like systems, including Linux, FreeBSD, and macOS

Cons of htop

• Written in C, which may be less approachable for some developers compared to Go
• Requires ncurses library, potentially making it more challenging to install on some systems
• User interface can be more complex and overwhelming for new users

Code Comparison

htop (C):

void Process_writeCommand(Process* this, int writeCommAs) {
    char command[MAX_CMDLINE];
    int baseProcessId = (this->tgid == this->pid) ? this->pid : this->tgid;
    const char* comm = Process_getCommand(this);
    // ... (additional code)
}

gotop (Go):

func (p *Process) WriteCommand(w io.Writer) {
    cmd := p.Comm
    if len(p.Cmdline) > 0 {
        cmd = strings.Join(p.Cmdline, " ")
    }
    fmt.Fprintf(w, "%s", cmd)
}

Both projects aim to provide system monitoring capabilities, but htop offers more advanced features and wider system support. gotop, being written in Go, may be more accessible for Go developers and easier to distribute as a single binary. The code comparison shows htop's C implementation handling more complex scenarios, while gotop's Go code is more concise and straightforward.

Pros of s-tui

• Written in Python, making it more accessible for contributions and modifications
• Focuses specifically on stress testing and monitoring, providing detailed CPU information
• Offers a customizable stress test feature

Cons of s-tui

• Limited to CPU monitoring, while gotop provides a more comprehensive system overview
• Less visually appealing interface compared to gotop's modern design
• Slower performance due to being written in Python instead of Go

Code Comparison

s-tui (Python):

def get_cpu_freq():
    cpu_freq = psutil.cpu_freq()
    return cpu_freq.current if cpu_freq else None

gotop (Go):

func getCPUFreq() float64 {
    freq, err := cpu.Percent(time.Second, false)
    if err != nil {
        return 0
    }
    return freq[0]
}

Both projects aim to provide system monitoring capabilities, but they differ in their focus and implementation. s-tui specializes in CPU monitoring and stress testing, making it ideal for users who need detailed CPU information and performance testing. gotop, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive system overview with a modern interface, making it suitable for general system monitoring tasks.

The choice between the two depends on the user's specific needs and preferences. s-tui is better for in-depth CPU analysis and stress testing, while gotop is more suitable for users who want a visually appealing and comprehensive system monitoring tool.

Pros of gotop (xxxserxxx)

• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes
• Supports more customization options and themes
• Includes additional features like process filtering and sorting

Cons of gotop (xxxserxxx)

• Slightly higher resource usage due to added features
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users
• Some users report occasional stability issues

Code Comparison

gotop (cjbassi):

func (self *Proc) update() {
    pid := self.Pid
    proc, err := process.NewProcess(pid)
    if err != nil {
        self.Dead = true
        return
    }
    // ... (additional code)
}

gotop (xxxserxxx):

func (p *Proc) update() error {
    proc, err := process.NewProcess(p.Pid)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    p.Command, err = proc.Cmdline()
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    // ... (additional code)
}

The xxxserxxx version includes error handling and returns errors, while the cjbassi version sets a "Dead" flag. The xxxserxxx implementation also retrieves the command line, providing more detailed process information.

Pros of bottom

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Offers a wider range of customization options
• Supports more operating systems, including Windows

Cons of bottom

• Higher resource usage due to being written in Rust
• Steeper learning curve for configuration and advanced features
• Larger binary size compared to gotop

Code Comparison

bottom (Rust):

let mut app = App::default();
app.run(&mut terminal, &mut events, &config)?;

gotop (Go):

proc := NewProc()
proc.UpdateProcs()

bottom uses a more object-oriented approach with a central App struct, while gotop employs a more procedural style. bottom's code structure allows for easier extensibility and customization, but may be more complex for simple use cases.

Both projects aim to provide a terminal-based system monitoring tool, but bottom offers more features and customization at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage. gotop, being written in Go, has a smaller footprint and simpler codebase, making it potentially more suitable for resource-constrained environments or users who prefer a more straightforward tool.