Pros of Qt

• Cross-platform support for multiple operating systems (Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS)
• Rich set of UI components and widgets for creating complex interfaces
• Extensive documentation and large community support

Cons of Qt

• Larger binary size and resource footprint
• Steeper learning curve, especially for developers new to Qt framework
• Licensing considerations for commercial applications

Code Comparison

Walk example:

package main

import "github.com/lxn/walk"

func main() {
    walk.MsgBox(nil, "Hello", "Hello, World!", walk.MsgBoxOK)
}

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")
    window.Show()
    app.Exec()
}

Both examples demonstrate creating a simple window or message box, but Qt requires more setup code for the application and main window. Walk provides a more straightforward approach for basic Windows GUI applications, while Qt offers more flexibility and cross-platform capabilities at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of Fyne

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, mobile)
• Modern, material design-inspired UI
• Active development and community support

Cons of Fyne

• Larger application size due to bundled dependencies
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with native GUI frameworks

Code Comparison

Walk example:

mw := new(MyMainWindow)
if _, err := MainWindow.Run(); err != nil {
    fmt.Println(err)
}

Fyne example:

app := app.New()
w := app.NewWindow("Hello")
w.SetContent(widget.NewLabel("Hello Fyne!"))
w.ShowAndRun()

Key Differences

• Walk is Windows-specific, while Fyne is cross-platform
• Walk uses native Windows controls, Fyne uses custom rendering
• Fyne has a more modern API and design philosophy
• Walk may be more suitable for traditional Windows desktop applications
• Fyne is better suited for cross-platform and mobile development

Use Cases

Walk:

• Windows-only desktop applications
• Applications requiring native Windows look and feel

Fyne:

• Cross-platform desktop and mobile applications
• Modern, material design-inspired UIs
• Rapid prototyping and development of GUI applications

Pros of ui

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• More modern and actively maintained
• Simpler API design for basic UI elements

Cons of ui

• Less comprehensive widget set compared to walk
• Fewer examples and documentation available
• Still in alpha stage, potential for breaking changes

Code Comparison

walk:

window := walk.NewMainWindow()
button, _ := walk.NewPushButton(window)
button.SetText("Click me")
button.Clicked().Attach(func() {
    walk.MsgBox(window, "Hello", "You clicked the button!", walk.MsgBoxOK)
})

ui:

window := ui.NewWindow("Window Title", 200, 100, false)
button := ui.NewButton("Click me")
button.OnClicked(func(*ui.Button) {
    ui.MsgBox(window, "Hello", "You clicked the button!")
})
window.SetChild(button)

Both libraries provide similar functionality for creating basic UI elements, but ui has a slightly more concise syntax. walk offers more detailed control over layouts and widgets, while ui aims for simplicity and cross-platform consistency. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, target platforms, and desired level of UI customization.

Pros of govcl

• Supports multiple platforms (Windows, Linux, macOS) using Lazarus LCL
• Provides a rich set of UI components and controls
• Offers both high-level and low-level APIs for flexibility

Cons of govcl

• Requires external dependencies (Lazarus LCL)
• May have a steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive feature set
• Less idiomatic Go code compared to walk

Code Comparison

walk example:

mw := new(MyMainWindow)
if _, err := walk.NewMainWindow(mw); err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
mw.Run()

govcl example:

type TForm1 struct {
    *vcl.TForm
}
var form1 *TForm1
func main() {
    vcl.Application.Initialize()
    vcl.Application.CreateForm(&form1)
    vcl.Application.Run()
}

Summary

walk is a Windows-specific GUI toolkit with a more idiomatic Go approach, while govcl offers cross-platform support and a richer set of components at the cost of external dependencies and potentially more complex usage. The choice between them depends on the specific project requirements, target platforms, and developer preferences.

Pros of webview

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Lightweight and easy to integrate
• Uses native web engines for rendering

Cons of webview

• Limited native UI controls
• Requires web technologies knowledge
• May have performance overhead for complex UIs

Code comparison

webview:

package main

import "github.com/webview/webview"

func main() {
    w := webview.New(true)
    defer w.Destroy()
    w.SetTitle("Webview Example")
    w.SetSize(800, 600, webview.HintNone)
    w.Navigate("https://example.com")
    w.Run()
}

walk:

package main

import (
    "github.com/lxn/walk"
    . "github.com/lxn/walk/declarative"
)

func main() {
    MainWindow{
        Title:   "Walk Example",
        MinSize: Size{Width: 600, Height: 400},
        Layout:  VBox{},
        Children: []Widget{
            PushButton{Text: "Click Me"},
        },
    }.Run()
}

The webview example demonstrates creating a simple web-based window, while the walk example shows creating a native Windows GUI with a button. webview offers a more straightforward approach for web-based interfaces, while walk provides more control over native Windows UI elements.