Pros of ratatui

• More active development and maintenance
• Enhanced cross-platform support, including Windows
• Improved documentation and examples

Cons of ratatui

• Potential breaking changes due to ongoing development
• Less established ecosystem compared to tui-rs

Code Comparison

tui-rs:

use tui::widgets::{Block, Borders};
let block = Block::default()
    .title("Block")
    .borders(Borders::ALL);

ratatui:

use ratatui::widgets::{Block, Borders};
let block = Block::default()
    .title("Block")
    .borders(Borders::ALL);

Key Differences

• ratatui is a fork of tui-rs, aiming to continue its development
• ratatui has a more active community and frequent updates
• Both libraries share similar APIs, making migration relatively straightforward
• ratatui focuses on improving cross-platform compatibility and user experience

Use Cases

• Choose ratatui for new projects or when seeking active development and support
• Stick with tui-rs for existing projects or if stability is a priority

Community and Support

• ratatui has a growing community and more frequent contributions
• tui-rs has a larger existing user base but less active development

Performance

• Both libraries offer similar performance characteristics
• ratatui may have slight improvements due to ongoing optimizations

Pros of Cursive

• More user-friendly API, making it easier for beginners to create TUIs
• Built-in support for common widgets like dialogs, menus, and text inputs
• Cross-platform compatibility, including Windows support

Cons of Cursive

• Less flexible for creating custom layouts compared to tui-rs
• Potentially higher memory usage due to its more abstracted approach
• Slower rendering performance for complex UIs with many elements

Code Comparison

Cursive example:

siv.add_layer(
    Dialog::around(TextView::new("Hello, world!"))
        .title("My Dialog")
        .button("Quit", |s| s.quit()),
);

tui-rs example:

f.render_widget(
    Paragraph::new("Hello, world!")
        .block(Block::default().title("My Dialog").borders(Borders::ALL)),
    chunks[0],
);

Both libraries offer ways to create text-based user interfaces in Rust, but they differ in their approach. Cursive provides a higher-level abstraction with pre-built widgets, making it easier for beginners to create functional TUIs quickly. On the other hand, tui-rs offers more flexibility and control over the layout and rendering process, which can be beneficial for more complex or performance-critical applications.

Pros of termion

• Lower-level library, offering more fine-grained control over terminal operations
• Lighter weight and potentially faster due to its minimalistic approach
• Supports both Unix-like systems and Redox OS, providing broader compatibility

Cons of termion

• Requires more manual implementation for complex UI elements
• Less abstraction, which can lead to more verbose code for advanced interfaces
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its low-level nature

Code Comparison

termion example:

use termion::{color, style};
println!("{}{}Colored text!{}",
         color::Fg(color::Red),
         style::Bold,
         style::Reset);

tui-rs example:

use tui::widgets::{Block, Borders};
let block = Block::default()
    .title("Block")
    .borders(Borders::ALL);
f.render_widget(block, chunks[0]);

termion focuses on direct terminal manipulation, while tui-rs provides higher-level abstractions for creating user interfaces. termion is better suited for simpler terminal applications or when fine-grained control is needed, whereas tui-rs excels in creating more complex, interactive terminal user interfaces with less code.

Pros of crossterm

• Platform-independent terminal manipulation library
• Supports a wide range of terminal operations (cursor movement, colors, input handling)
• Lightweight and focused on core terminal functionality

Cons of crossterm

• Lacks high-level UI components and widgets
• Requires more manual work to create complex user interfaces
• Less suitable for creating full-fledged TUI applications out-of-the-box

Code comparison

crossterm:

use crossterm::{
    execute,
    style::{Color, Print, SetForegroundColor},
};

fn main() -> crossterm::Result<()> {
    execute!(
        stdout(),
        SetForegroundColor(Color::Blue),
        Print("Hello, World!")
    )
}

tui-rs:

use tui::{
    backend::CrosstermBackend,
    widgets::{Block, Borders},
    Terminal,
};

fn main() -> Result<(), io::Error> {
    let mut terminal = Terminal::new(CrosstermBackend::new(stdout()))?;
    terminal.draw(|f| {
        let block = Block::default().title("Block").borders(Borders::ALL);
        f.render_widget(block, f.size());
    })?;
    Ok(())
}

crossterm focuses on low-level terminal operations, while tui-rs provides higher-level abstractions for building text-based user interfaces. crossterm is more flexible but requires more manual work, whereas tui-rs offers pre-built widgets and layout management for quicker TUI development.