Pros of Coffee

• Simpler API with fewer abstractions, making it easier to get started
• More focused on 2D graphics and game development
• Provides built-in support for audio playback

Cons of Coffee

• Less comprehensive widget system compared to Iced
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• Limited cross-platform support (primarily targets desktop platforms)

Code Comparison

Coffee example:

use coffee::graphics::{Color, Frame, Window};
use coffee::load::Task;
use coffee::{Game, Result, Timer};

struct MyGame;

impl Game for MyGame {
    fn draw(&mut self, frame: &mut Frame) {
        frame.clear(Color::BLACK);
    }
}

Iced example:

use iced::{Element, Sandbox, Settings};

struct MyApp;

impl Sandbox for MyApp {
    type Message = ();

    fn new() -> Self {
        MyApp
    }

    fn view(&mut self) -> Element<Self::Message> {
        "Hello, Iced!".into()
    }
}

Both Coffee and Iced are Rust libraries for building user interfaces, but they have different focuses. Coffee is more oriented towards 2D graphics and game development, while Iced provides a more comprehensive framework for building general-purpose GUI applications. Iced offers a richer set of widgets and better cross-platform support, making it more suitable for complex desktop applications. Coffee, on the other hand, has a simpler API and built-in audio support, which can be advantageous for smaller projects or games.

Pros of egui

• Immediate mode GUI, offering simpler state management and faster prototyping
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Supports both native and web targets with a single codebase

Cons of egui

• Less customizable appearance compared to retained mode GUIs
• May have performance limitations for complex UIs with many elements
• Lacks some advanced features found in more mature GUI frameworks

Code Comparison

egui:

ui.heading("My egui App");
ui.horizontal(|ui| {
    if ui.button("Click me").clicked() {
        println!("Button clicked!");
    }
    ui.label("Hello, world!");
});

iced:

Column::new()
    .push(Text::new("My iced App"))
    .push(Button::new("Click me").on_press(Message::ButtonClicked))
    .push(Text::new("Hello, world!"))
    .into()

Both egui and iced are Rust GUI libraries, but they follow different paradigms. egui uses immediate mode rendering, which can be more intuitive for simple applications, while iced uses a more traditional retained mode approach with a Elm-like architecture. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and personal preference.

Pros of fltk-rs

• Mature and stable, based on the well-established FLTK C++ library
• Lightweight with minimal dependencies
• Cross-platform support with native look and feel

Cons of fltk-rs

• Less idiomatic Rust API compared to Iced
• Limited built-in widgets and customization options
• Steeper learning curve for Rust developers unfamiliar with FLTK

Code Comparison

fltk-rs:

use fltk::{app, button::Button, frame::Frame, prelude::*, window::Window};

fn main() {
    let app = app::App::default();
    let mut wind = Window::new(100, 100, 400, 300, "Hello from fltk-rs");
    let mut frame = Frame::new(0, 0, 400, 200, "");
    let mut but = Button::new(160, 210, 80, 40, "Click me!");
    wind.end();
    wind.show();
    but.set_callback(move |_| frame.set_label("Hello World!"));
    app.run().unwrap();
}

Iced:

use iced::{button, Button, Column, Element, Sandbox, Settings, Text};

struct Counter {
    value: i32,
    increment_button: button::State,
}

impl Sandbox for Counter {
    type Message = Message;
    // ... (implementation details omitted for brevity)
}

fn main() -> iced::Result {
    Counter::run(Settings::default())
}

Pros of Slint

• Cross-platform support for desktop and embedded systems
• Declarative UI design with a custom markup language
• Built-in support for multiple programming languages (Rust, C++, JavaScript)

Cons of Slint

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Iced
• Steeper learning curve due to custom markup language
• Less mature and fewer real-world applications

Code Comparison

Slint (using .slint markup):

export component Button {
    Text {
        text: "Click me!";
    }
}

Iced (using Rust):

use iced::widget::Button;

let button = Button::new("Click me!");

Slint focuses on a declarative approach with its custom markup language, while Iced uses a more traditional Rust-based approach for defining UI elements. Slint's syntax may be more intuitive for designers, while Iced's approach might be more familiar to Rust developers.

Both frameworks aim to provide cross-platform GUI development for Rust, but they take different approaches. Slint offers broader language support and a unique markup language, while Iced focuses on a pure Rust implementation with a more traditional API. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of OrbTk

• Cross-platform support for desktop, web, and mobile
• Integrated layout system with flexbox-like capabilities
• More mature project with a longer development history

Cons of OrbTk

• Less active development and community engagement
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture
• Limited documentation and examples compared to Iced

Code Comparison

OrbTk example:

use orbtk::prelude::*;

fn main() {
    Application::new()
        .window(|ctx| {
            Window::new()
                .title("OrbTk Example")
                .child(TextBlock::new().text("Hello, OrbTk!").build(ctx))
                .build(ctx)
        })
        .run();
}

Iced example:

use iced::{Element, Sandbox, Settings, Text};

struct HelloWorld;

impl Sandbox for HelloWorld {
    type Message = ();

    fn new() -> Self { HelloWorld }
    fn title(&self) -> String { String::from("Iced Example") }
    fn view(&self) -> Element<Self::Message> { Text::new("Hello, Iced!").into() }
    fn update(&mut self, _message: Self::Message) {}
}

fn main() -> iced::Result {
    HelloWorld::run(Settings::default())
}

Both frameworks offer declarative UI design, but OrbTk uses a more widget-centric approach, while Iced employs a more functional style with its Sandbox trait. Iced's code tends to be more concise and straightforward for simple applications, whereas OrbTk provides more granular control over widget properties and layout.

Pros of Druid

• More mature and feature-rich, with a larger ecosystem of widgets and components
• Better support for complex layouts and custom drawing
• Stronger focus on data-driven design, making it easier to manage application state

Cons of Druid

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Less idiomatic Rust code, with more use of macros and dynamic typing
• Slower development pace and less frequent updates compared to Iced

Code Comparison

Iced:

use iced::{button, Button, Column, Element, Sandbox, Settings, Text};

struct Counter {
    value: i32,
    increment_button: button::State,
    decrement_button: button::State,
}

Druid:

use druid::widget::{Button, Flex, Label};
use druid::{AppLauncher, Data, Lens, Widget, WindowDesc};

#[derive(Clone, Data, Lens)]
struct CounterState {
    count: i32,
}

Both Iced and Druid are GUI frameworks for Rust, aiming to provide declarative and efficient ways to build user interfaces. Iced offers a simpler, more straightforward approach with a focus on ease of use and idiomatic Rust code. Druid, on the other hand, provides more advanced features and flexibility at the cost of increased complexity. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with Rust GUI development.