Pros of Primitive

• Supports multiple output formats (SVG, PNG, GIF)
• Offers more shape options (triangles, rectangles, ellipses, etc.)
• Provides CLI and library interfaces for flexibility

Cons of Primitive

• Written in Go, which may have a steeper learning curve for some developers
• Slower processing time compared to Triangle
• Requires more system resources for complex images

Code Comparison

Triangle (Go):

triangles := primitive.Triangles(img, 100)
for _, t := range triangles {
    draw.DrawTriangle(dst, t, t.Color, draw.Over)
}

Primitive (Go):

model := primitive.NewModel(input.Image())
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    model.Step(primitive.ShapeTypeTriangle)
}
output := model.Image()

Key Differences

• Triangle focuses solely on triangles, while Primitive offers multiple shape options
• Triangle is optimized for speed and efficiency, while Primitive prioritizes versatility
• Primitive provides more control over the output format and appearance
• Triangle's implementation is simpler and more straightforward
• Primitive offers a more comprehensive set of features for image manipulation

Both projects aim to create artistic renderings of images using geometric shapes, but they cater to different use cases and preferences. Triangle is ideal for quick, triangle-based transformations, while Primitive offers more flexibility and output options at the cost of increased complexity and processing time.

Pros of Canvas

• More comprehensive graphics library with support for various shapes, paths, and text rendering
• Offers both vector and raster output formats (SVG, PDF, PNG)
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of Canvas

• Larger codebase and potentially steeper learning curve
• May be overkill for simple triangulation tasks
• Slower performance for specific triangle-based operations

Code Comparison

Triangle (image triangulation):

triangles, _ := triangle.Process(srcImage, 300, 50)
triangle.Draw(triangles, 800, 600, func() {})

Canvas (drawing triangles):

ctx := canvas.New(800, 600)
ctx.MoveTo(0, 0)
ctx.LineTo(400, 600)
ctx.LineTo(800, 0)
ctx.FillStroke()

Summary

Triangle focuses specifically on image triangulation and provides a simpler API for this task. Canvas is a more versatile graphics library that can handle various drawing operations, including triangles. While Canvas offers more features, Triangle may be more suitable for projects that primarily require image triangulation. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the desired level of control over graphics operations.

Pros of Pixel

• More comprehensive 2D game development framework with features like sprite handling, audio support, and input management
• Active development with regular updates and a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier learning and implementation

Cons of Pixel

• Larger and more complex codebase, which may be overkill for simple graphics tasks
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its broader feature set
• Potentially higher resource usage compared to Triangle's focused approach

Code Comparison

Triangle (image processing):

triangulated := triangle.Process(src, dst, triangles, blur, noise, strokeWidth)

Pixel (drawing a triangle):

imd := imdraw.New(nil)
imd.Push(pixel.V(100, 100), pixel.V(200, 200), pixel.V(300, 100))
imd.Polygon(0)
imd.Draw(win)

Summary

Triangle is a specialized library for image processing and triangulation, while Pixel is a more comprehensive 2D game development framework. Triangle excels in its specific use case of creating triangulated images, offering a simpler API for this task. Pixel, on the other hand, provides a wider range of features for game development, including graphics, input handling, and audio support. The choice between the two depends on the project requirements: Triangle for focused image triangulation, or Pixel for broader 2D game development needs.

Pros of Ebiten

• More comprehensive game development framework with broader capabilities
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier learning
• Cross-platform support for multiple operating systems and devices

Cons of Ebiten

• Steeper learning curve due to its more extensive feature set
• Potentially overkill for simple graphics or image processing tasks
• Larger codebase and dependencies compared to Triangle

Code Comparison

Triangle (image processing):

triangulated := triangle.NewTriangulator(image)
triangles, _ := triangulated.Process()

Ebiten (game development):

type Game struct{}

func (g *Game) Update() error {
    // Update game logic
    return nil
}

func (g *Game) Draw(screen *ebiten.Image) {
    // Draw game elements
}

Summary

Triangle is focused on image processing and triangulation, making it simpler for specific tasks. Ebiten is a full-fledged game development framework with broader capabilities but may be more complex for basic image manipulation. Choose Triangle for lightweight image processing or Ebiten for comprehensive game development needs.

Pros of Oak

• More comprehensive game development framework with features like collision detection, event handling, and scene management
• Active development with regular updates and a growing community
• Extensive documentation and examples for easier learning and implementation

Cons of Oak

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader scope and more complex architecture
• Potentially overkill for simple graphics or image processing tasks
• Larger codebase and dependencies, which may increase project size

Code Comparison

Triangle (image processing):

triangulated := triangle.Process(img, 500, 50)

Oak (game development):

oak.Add("scene",
    func(string, interface{}) {
        oak.Draw(player)
        oak.Draw(enemy)
    },
    func() bool {
        return player.Collides(enemy)
    },
)

Summary

Triangle focuses on image processing and triangulation, making it ideal for specific graphical effects. Oak, on the other hand, is a full-fledged game development framework with a wider range of features. While Oak offers more comprehensive tools for creating games, it may be excessive for simple image manipulation tasks. Triangle is more lightweight and easier to integrate for basic image processing, but lacks the extensive game development capabilities of Oak.