Pros of tview

• More feature-rich with a wider range of UI elements and widgets
• Better documentation and examples for easier learning and implementation
• Active development and maintenance with frequent updates

Cons of tview

• Slightly more complex API, which may require a steeper learning curve
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing project size

Code Comparison

gocui example:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()

tview example:

app := tview.NewApplication()
box := tview.NewBox().SetBorder(true).SetTitle("Hello, world!")
if err := app.SetRoot(box, true).Run(); err != nil {
    panic(err)
}

Both libraries offer terminal-based UI creation in Go, but tview provides a more comprehensive set of features and widgets. gocui focuses on simplicity and low-level control, while tview offers a higher-level API with more built-in functionality. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your preference for API complexity versus feature richness.

Pros of tcell

• More comprehensive and lower-level terminal handling, offering greater flexibility
• Better support for a wider range of terminal types and color schemes
• Active development and maintenance, with regular updates and improvements

Cons of tcell

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level nature
• Requires more code to create complex UI layouts compared to gocui

Code comparison

gocui example:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()

tcell example:

s, err := tcell.NewScreen()
if err != nil {
    log.Fatalf("%+v", err)
}
if err := s.Init(); err != nil {
    log.Fatalf("%+v", err)
}

Summary

tcell is a more powerful and flexible terminal handling library, offering greater control and compatibility with various terminal types. However, it requires more effort to create complex UIs compared to gocui, which provides higher-level abstractions for building text-based user interfaces. gocui may be easier to use for simpler projects, while tcell is better suited for more complex terminal applications that require fine-grained control over the display and input handling.

Pros of termui

• More visually appealing and feature-rich UI components (charts, gauges, sparklines)
• Better suited for data visualization and dashboard-style applications
• Easier to create complex layouts with built-in grid system

Cons of termui

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less flexible for creating custom widgets or modifying existing ones
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially impacting performance

Code Comparison

termui example:

ui.Init()
p := widgets.NewParagraph()
p.Text = "Hello World!"
ui.Render(p)

gocui example:

g, _ := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
v, _ := g.SetView("hello", 1, 1, 22, 3)
fmt.Fprintln(v, "Hello World!")

Summary

termui excels in creating visually appealing dashboards and data visualizations with its rich set of pre-built components. It's ideal for applications that require complex layouts and graphical elements. However, it may be overkill for simpler text-based interfaces.

gocui, on the other hand, offers a more lightweight and flexible approach to building terminal UIs. It provides greater control over individual views and is better suited for applications that require custom widgets or fine-grained control over the interface. While it may require more code for complex layouts, it offers better performance and a gentler learning curve for basic terminal UI development.

Pros of termbox-go

• Lower-level library, offering more flexibility and control over terminal input/output
• Simpler API, making it easier to get started for basic terminal applications
• Supports a wider range of terminal types and configurations

Cons of termbox-go

• Lacks built-in support for creating complex UI layouts and widgets
• Requires more manual handling of screen updates and event processing
• Less suitable for creating sophisticated TUI applications without additional effort

Code Comparison

termbox-go:

err := termbox.Init()
if err != nil {
    panic(err)
}
defer termbox.Close()
termbox.SetOutputMode(termbox.Output256)

gocui:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()
g.SetManagerFunc(layout)

Summary

termbox-go is a lower-level library that provides more direct control over terminal I/O, making it suitable for simpler applications or as a foundation for building more complex TUI frameworks. gocui, on the other hand, offers a higher-level abstraction with built-in support for creating sophisticated terminal user interfaces, including layouts and widgets. The choice between the two depends on the complexity of the desired application and the level of control required over terminal operations.

Pros of tui-go

• More modern and actively maintained
• Better documentation and examples
• Simpler API, easier to get started with

Cons of tui-go

• Less feature-rich compared to gocui
• Fewer built-in widgets and layout options
• May require more custom code for complex UIs

Code Comparison

tui-go:

box := tui.NewVBox(
    tui.NewLabel("Hello, world!"),
    tui.NewLabel("Press q to quit."),
)
ui, err := tui.New(box)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

gocui:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()

g.SetManagerFunc(layout)
if err := g.SetKeybinding("", gocui.KeyCtrlC, gocui.ModNone, quit); err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}

The code comparison shows that tui-go has a more straightforward approach to creating UI elements and initializing the application. gocui requires more setup code and uses a manager function for layout, which can be more flexible but also more complex for beginners.

Both libraries have their strengths, with tui-go being more beginner-friendly and gocui offering more advanced features for complex terminal UIs.

Pros of Bubbletea

• More modern and actively maintained
• Simpler API with a focus on composability
• Better support for keyboard input and mouse events

Cons of Bubbletea

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique approach
• Less fine-grained control over UI elements compared to Gocui

Code Comparison

Gocui example:

g, err := gocui.NewGui(gocui.OutputNormal)
if err != nil {
    log.Panicln(err)
}
defer g.Close()

g.SetManagerFunc(layout)

Bubbletea example:

p := tea.NewProgram(initialModel())
if err := p.Start(); err != nil {
    fmt.Printf("Alas, there's been an error: %v", err)
    os.Exit(1)
}

Both libraries offer ways to create terminal user interfaces in Go, but they differ in their approach. Gocui provides a more traditional, low-level API for creating views and handling events, while Bubbletea uses a more modern, state-based approach inspired by The Elm Architecture. Bubbletea's design makes it easier to create complex, interactive applications, but it may require developers to think differently about UI construction. Gocui, on the other hand, offers more direct control over the UI elements but may require more boilerplate code for complex interactions.