Pros of SDL

• More comprehensive feature set, including audio, input handling, and networking
• Cross-platform support for a wider range of systems, including mobile platforms
• Larger community and ecosystem with more resources and third-party libraries

Cons of SDL

• Heavier and more complex API compared to GLFW's focused approach
• Potentially higher overhead due to its broader feature set
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its extensive functionality

Code Comparison

SDL initialization:

SDL_Init(SDL_INIT_VIDEO);
SDL_Window* window = SDL_CreateWindow("SDL Window", SDL_WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, SDL_WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, 800, 600, SDL_WINDOW_SHOWN);
SDL_Renderer* renderer = SDL_CreateRenderer(window, -1, SDL_RENDERER_ACCELERATED);

GLFW initialization:

glfwInit();
GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(800, 600, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);

SDL is more verbose but provides built-in rendering capabilities, while GLFW focuses on window creation and OpenGL context management. SDL offers a wider range of functionality out of the box, making it suitable for more diverse projects. GLFW, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more focused API for window management and input handling, making it ideal for OpenGL-centric applications with custom rendering pipelines.

Pros of raylib

• Higher-level API with more built-in functionality for game development
• Easier to get started with for beginners
• Cross-platform support out of the box

Cons of raylib

• Less flexibility for low-level control
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to GLFW
• May be overkill for simple windowing and input handling

Code Comparison

raylib example:

#include "raylib.h"

int main() {
    InitWindow(800, 450, "raylib example");
    while (!WindowShouldClose()) {
        BeginDrawing();
        ClearBackground(RAYWHITE);
        DrawText("Hello, raylib!", 190, 200, 20, LIGHTGRAY);
        EndDrawing();
    }
    CloseWindow();
    return 0;
}

GLFW example:

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main() {
    if (!glfwInit()) return -1;
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(800, 450, "GLFW example", NULL, NULL);
    if (!window) {
        glfwTerminate();
        return -1;
    }
    glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);
    while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
        glfwSwapBuffers(window);
        glfwPollEvents();
    }
    glfwTerminate();
    return 0;
}

Pros of ImGui

• Immediate mode GUI library, allowing for quick and easy creation of user interfaces
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Highly customizable and extensible

Cons of ImGui

• Limited to 2D rendering, unlike GLFW which supports 3D graphics
• Requires more manual management of UI state compared to retained mode GUI libraries
• Less suitable for complex, large-scale applications

Code Comparison

ImGui example:

ImGui::Begin("Hello, world!");
if (ImGui::Button("Click me"))
    clicked++;
ImGui::Text("Button clicked %d times", clicked);
ImGui::End();

GLFW example:

glfwInit();
GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "Hello World", NULL, NULL);
glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);
while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window))
{
    glfwSwapBuffers(window);
    glfwPollEvents();
}

Summary

ImGui is a lightweight, immediate mode GUI library ideal for quick prototyping and simple interfaces. GLFW, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive windowing and input library that provides a foundation for both 2D and 3D graphics applications. While ImGui excels in rapid UI development, GLFW offers more control over the application window and input handling, making it better suited for larger, more complex projects.

Pros of Emscripten

• Enables compilation of C/C++ code to WebAssembly, allowing desktop applications to run in web browsers
• Provides a comprehensive toolchain for web development with C/C++
• Supports a wide range of libraries and APIs, including OpenGL

Cons of Emscripten

• Steeper learning curve compared to GLFW's more focused approach
• May introduce additional complexity for projects that don't require web compatibility
• Performance overhead due to the translation layer between native code and web technologies

Code Comparison

GLFW (C):

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main(void) {
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
    glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);
}

Emscripten (C++):

#include <emscripten.h>
#include <emscripten/html5.h>

int main() {
    EmscriptenWebGLContextAttributes attrs;
    emscripten_webgl_init_context_attributes(&attrs);
    EMSCRIPTEN_WEBGL_CONTEXT_HANDLE context = emscripten_webgl_create_context("#canvas", &attrs);
}

While GLFW focuses on creating native windows and OpenGL contexts, Emscripten provides tools for compiling C/C++ code to run in web browsers, including WebGL support. GLFW is more straightforward for desktop applications, while Emscripten offers broader web compatibility at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of Godot

• Full-featured game engine with built-in editor, scripting, and asset management
• Cross-platform support for multiple target platforms (desktop, mobile, web)
• Active community and extensive documentation

Cons of Godot

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• Larger project size and resource footprint
• Less suitable for lightweight applications or simple windowing tasks

Code Comparison

GLFW (C):

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main(void) {
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(640, 480, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
    while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
        glfwSwapBuffers(window);
    }
}

Godot (GDScript):

extends Node2D

func _ready():
    var window = get_tree().root
    window.size = Vector2(640, 480)
    window.title = "Godot Window"

Summary

GLFW is a lightweight library for creating windows with OpenGL contexts, while Godot is a comprehensive game engine. GLFW is better suited for low-level graphics programming and custom engine development, whereas Godot provides a complete ecosystem for game development with higher-level abstractions and tools.

Pros of SFML

• Higher-level API with more built-in functionality (graphics, audio, networking)
• Object-oriented design, making it easier for C++ developers
• Cross-platform support with consistent API across different operating systems

Cons of SFML

• Larger library size and potentially higher resource usage
• Less flexibility for low-level control compared to GLFW
• May have slower performance for certain use cases due to abstraction layers

Code Comparison

SFML example:

#include <SFML/Graphics.hpp>

int main() {
    sf::RenderWindow window(sf::VideoMode(800, 600), "SFML Window");
    while (window.isOpen()) {
        sf::Event event;
        while (window.pollEvent(event)) {
            if (event.type == sf::Event::Closed)
                window.close();
        }
        window.clear();
        window.display();
    }
    return 0;
}

GLFW example:

#include <GLFW/glfw3.h>

int main() {
    if (!glfwInit()) return -1;
    GLFWwindow* window = glfwCreateWindow(800, 600, "GLFW Window", NULL, NULL);
    if (!window) {
        glfwTerminate();
        return -1;
    }
    glfwMakeContextCurrent(window);
    while (!glfwWindowShouldClose(window)) {
        glfwSwapBuffers(window);
        glfwPollEvents();
    }
    glfwTerminate();
    return 0;
}