Pros of Fyne

• Cross-platform GUI toolkit for desktop, mobile, and web applications
• Rich set of pre-built widgets and layouts for rapid development
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of Fyne

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to GUI programming
• Limited customization options for widget appearance

Code Comparison

Fyne example:

package main

import (
    "fyne.io/fyne/v2/app"
    "fyne.io/fyne/v2/widget"
)

func main() {
    myApp := app.New()
    myWindow := myApp.NewWindow("Hello")
    myWindow.SetContent(widget.NewLabel("Hello Fyne!"))
    myWindow.ShowAndRun()
}

gg example:

package main

import "github.com/fogleman/gg"

func main() {
    dc := gg.NewContext(1000, 1000)
    dc.DrawCircle(500, 500, 400)
    dc.SetRGB(0, 0, 0)
    dc.Fill()
    dc.SavePNG("out.png")
}

Summary

Fyne is a comprehensive GUI toolkit for building cross-platform applications, while gg focuses on 2D graphics rendering. Fyne offers a wide range of pre-built widgets and layouts, making it suitable for complex GUI applications. gg, on the other hand, provides a simpler API for creating 2D graphics and images. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Pros of Ebiten

• Focused on game development with built-in game loop and input handling
• Cross-platform support, including mobile and web browsers
• Active development and community support

Cons of Ebiten

• Steeper learning curve for non-game applications
• Less flexibility for general-purpose graphics tasks
• Limited built-in drawing primitives compared to GG

Code Comparison

gg example:

dc := gg.NewContext(1000, 1000)
dc.DrawCircle(500, 500, 400)
dc.SetRGB(0, 0, 0)
dc.Fill()
dc.SavePNG("output.png")

Ebiten example:

type Game struct{}

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

func (g *Game) Draw(screen *ebiten.Image) {
    ebitenutil.DrawCircle(screen, 500, 500, 400, color.Black)
}

func (g *Game) Layout(w, h int) (int, int) {
    return 1000, 1000
}

GG is more straightforward for simple drawing tasks, while Ebiten requires a game structure but offers more game-specific features. GG is better suited for static image generation, whereas Ebiten excels in interactive applications and games.

Pros of Oak

• More comprehensive game development framework with built-in scene management and entity-component system
• Active development and community support, with regular updates and contributions
• Includes audio support and collision detection out of the box

Cons of Oak

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture and features
• Potentially overkill for simple 2D graphics projects
• Less flexible for non-game graphics applications

Code Comparison

Oak example:

type player struct {
    oak.Entity
}

func (p *player) Init() {
    p.SetDimensions(32, 32)
    p.SetPosition(100, 100)
}

oak.Add("main", func(string, interface{}) {
    oak.SetViewportBounds(0, 0, 800, 600)
    oak.Add("main", &player{})
})

GG example:

dc := gg.NewContext(1000, 1000)
dc.DrawCircle(500, 500, 400)
dc.SetRGB(0, 0, 0)
dc.Fill()
dc.SavePNG("out.png")

Oak is more suited for game development with its entity-based approach, while GG focuses on simple 2D drawing operations. Oak provides a structured framework for game logic, while GG offers a straightforward API for creating graphics. The choice between them depends on the project's complexity and requirements.

Pros of Qt

• Comprehensive GUI framework with extensive widget library
• Cross-platform support for desktop and mobile applications
• Large and active community with extensive documentation

Cons of Qt

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity
• Larger binary sizes and potential performance overhead
• Licensing considerations for commercial applications

Code Comparison

Qt example:

package main

import (
    "os"
    "github.com/therecipe/qt/widgets"
)

func main() {
    app := widgets.NewQApplication(len(os.Args), os.Args)
    window := widgets.NewQMainWindow(nil, 0)
    window.SetWindowTitle("Hello World")
    window.Show()
    app.Exec()
}

gg example:

package main

import "github.com/fogleman/gg"

func main() {
    dc := gg.NewContext(1000, 1000)
    dc.DrawCircle(500, 500, 400)
    dc.SetRGB(0, 0, 0)
    dc.Fill()
    dc.SavePNG("output.png")
}

Summary

Qt offers a comprehensive GUI framework with cross-platform support, while gg focuses on 2D graphics rendering. Qt provides a rich set of widgets and tools for building complex applications, but comes with a steeper learning curve and larger overhead. gg, on the other hand, offers a simpler API for 2D graphics operations, making it more suitable for specific graphics-related tasks rather than full-fledged GUI applications.