Pros of Fyne

• Fyne provides a cross-platform GUI toolkit, allowing developers to build applications for desktop, mobile, and web platforms using a single codebase.
• The framework offers a rich set of built-in widgets and components, simplifying the development process.
• Fyne has a strong focus on simplicity and ease of use, making it a good choice for developers who want to quickly build user-friendly applications.

Cons of Fyne

• Fyne is a relatively new framework, and its ecosystem may not be as mature as that of other GUI toolkits, such as the one provided by the Go standard library.
• The performance of Fyne applications may not be as optimized as those built using lower-level libraries, especially for complex or resource-intensive applications.
• The documentation and community support for Fyne may not be as extensive as for more established frameworks.

Code Comparison

Fyne:

package main

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

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

Golang/Mobile:

package main

import (
    "golang.org/x/mobile/app"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/lifecycle"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/paint"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/size"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/gl"
)

func main() {
    app.Main(func(a app.App) {
        // ...
    })
}

Pros of GAPID

• GAPID provides a comprehensive set of tools for debugging and profiling Android and OpenGL ES applications, including a powerful GPU debugger.
• GAPID supports a wide range of Android devices and versions, making it a versatile tool for developers.
• GAPID's user interface is intuitive and easy to use, with a range of visualization and analysis tools.

Cons of GAPID

• GAPID is primarily focused on Android and OpenGL ES development, while golang/mobile supports a broader range of mobile platforms, including iOS.
• GAPID may have a steeper learning curve compared to golang/mobile, especially for developers who are new to Android and OpenGL ES development.

Code Comparison

golang/mobile

func main() {
    app.Main(func(app app.App) {
        var glctx gl.Context
        for e := range app.Events() {
            switch e := app.Filter(e).(type) {
            case lifecycle.Event:
                switch e.Crosses(lifecycle.StageVisible) {
                case lifecycle.CrossOn:
                    glctx, _ = e.DrawContext.(gl.Context)
                case lifecycle.CrossOff:
                    glctx = nil
                }
            case paint.Event:
                if glctx != nil {
                    // Render your scene here.
                    glctx.ClearColor(1, 1, 1, 1)
                    glctx.Clear(gl.COLOR_BUFFER_BIT)
                    app.Publish()
                }
            }
        }
    })
}

GAPID

func main() {
    app := app.New()
    defer app.Shutdown()

    // Create a new context.
    ctx := context.Background()

    // Connect to the device.
    device, err := app.ConnectToDevice(ctx)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatalf("Failed to connect to device: %v", err)
    }
    defer device.Close()

    // Launch the app.
    app, err := device.LaunchApp(ctx, "com.example.myapp")
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatalf("Failed to launch app: %v", err)
    }
    defer app.Close()

    // Capture a frame.
    frame, err := app.CaptureFrame(ctx)
    if err != nil {
        log.Fatalf("Failed to capture frame: %v", err)
    }
    defer frame.Close()
}

Pros of gotk3/gotk3

• Provides a Go-native binding for the GTK+ toolkit, allowing for the creation of cross-platform desktop applications.
• Offers a more idiomatic Go experience compared to the lower-level approach of golang/mobile.
• Supports a wide range of GTK+ widgets and functionality, enabling the development of feature-rich desktop applications.

Cons of gotk3/gotk3

• Requires the installation of the GTK+ library on the target system, which may not be available on all platforms.
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with the GTK+ ecosystem.
• Potentially less performant than the native mobile approach of golang/mobile.

Code Comparison

golang/mobile

package main

import (
    "golang.org/x/mobile/app"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/lifecycle"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/paint"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/size"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/gl"
)

func main() {
    app.Main(func(a app.App) {
        // ...
    })
}

gotk3/gotk3

package main

import (
    "github.com/gotk3/gotk3/gtk"
)

func main() {
    gtk.Init(nil)
    window, _ := gtk.WindowNew(gtk.WINDOW_TOPLEVEL)
    window.SetTitle("Hello, World!")
    window.Connect("destroy", gtk.MainQuit)
    window.ShowAll()
    gtk.Main()
}

Pros of Kivy

• Kivy is a cross-platform framework, allowing developers to create applications for a variety of platforms, including desktop, mobile, and web.
• Kivy has a large and active community, providing a wealth of resources, tutorials, and support for developers.
• Kivy's event-driven architecture and declarative UI design make it easy to build responsive and interactive applications.

Cons of Kivy

• Kivy has a steeper learning curve compared to Golang/Mobile, as it requires developers to learn a new set of APIs and concepts.
• Kivy's performance may not be as optimized as Golang/Mobile, especially for resource-intensive applications.
• Kivy's dependency on Python may limit its adoption in certain environments or use cases where performance and native integration are critical.

Code Comparison

Kivy (Python):

from kivy.app import App
from kivy.uix.button import Button

class MyApp(App):
    def build(self):
        return Button(text='Hello, Kivy!', on_press=self.button_pressed)

    def button_pressed(self, instance):
        print('Button pressed!')

if __name__ == '__main__':
    MyApp().run()

Golang/Mobile (Go):

package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/app"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/lifecycle"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/paint"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/event/size"
    "golang.org/x/mobile/gl"
)

func main() {
    app.Main(func(a app.App) {
        for e := range a.Events() {
            switch e := a.Filter(e).(type) {
            case lifecycle.Event:
                // ...
            case size.Event:
                // ...
            case paint.Event:
                // ...
            }
        }
    })
}

Pros of veandco/go-sdl2

• Provides a comprehensive Go binding for the popular SDL2 (Simple DirectMedia Layer) library, which is widely used for game development and multimedia applications.
• Offers a rich set of features and functionality, including support for graphics, audio, input handling, and more.
• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes.

Cons of veandco/go-sdl2

• May have a steeper learning curve compared to the more high-level abstractions provided by golang/mobile.
• Requires the installation of the SDL2 library on the target system, which can be more complex than the built-in dependencies of golang/mobile.
• May have fewer resources and community support compared to the larger and more established golang/mobile project.

Code Comparison

Here's a brief comparison of code snippets from both projects:

golang/mobile:

func main() {
    app.Main(func(app app.App) {
        for e := range app.Events() {
            switch e := app.Filter(e).(type) {
            case lifecycle.Event:
                switch e.Crosses(lifecycle.StageVisible) {
                case lifecycle.CrossOn:
                    // app is now visible
                case lifecycle.CrossOff:
                    // app is no longer visible
                }
            case paint.Event:
                app.Publish()
                app.Send(paint.Event{})
            }
        }
    })
}

veandco/go-sdl2:

func main() {
    if err := sdl.Init(sdl.INIT_EVERYTHING); err != nil {
        fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Failed to initialize SDL: %s\n", err)
        return
    }
    defer sdl.Quit()

    window, err := sdl.CreateWindow("SDL2 Go", sdl.WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, sdl.WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, 800, 600, sdl.WINDOW_SHOWN)
    if err != nil {
        fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Failed to create window: %s\n", err)
        return
    }
    defer window.Destroy()
}