Pros of tview

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Richer set of widgets and layout options
• Better documentation and examples

Cons of tview

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger codebase, potentially impacting performance

Code Comparison

tui-go example:

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

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 similar functionality for creating terminal user interfaces in Go. tview provides a more comprehensive set of features and is actively maintained, making it a popular choice for complex TUI applications. However, tui-go may be simpler to get started with for basic interfaces. The code examples demonstrate the slight differences in API design, with tview using a more object-oriented approach and tui-go favoring a more functional style.

Pros of gocui

• More mature and stable project with a larger community and more contributors
• Provides lower-level control over the terminal UI, allowing for more customization
• Better suited for complex, multi-window applications

Cons of gocui

• Steeper learning curve due to its lower-level API
• Requires more boilerplate code to set up basic UI elements
• Less intuitive for beginners compared to tui-go's higher-level abstractions

Code Comparison

gocui example:

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

g.SetManagerFunc(layout)

tui-go example:

root := tui.NewVBox(
    tui.NewLabel("Hello, world!"),
    tui.NewSpacer(),
)
ui, err := tui.New(root)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

Both libraries offer powerful tools for creating terminal user interfaces in Go. gocui provides more fine-grained control and is better suited for complex applications, while tui-go offers a higher-level API that's easier to get started with for simpler UIs. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with terminal UI concepts.

Pros of tcell

• More mature and widely used project with a larger community
• Supports a broader range of terminal types and platforms
• Offers lower-level control over terminal input and output

Cons of tcell

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

Code Comparison

tcell example:

screen, _ := tcell.NewScreen()
screen.Init()
defer screen.Fini()

screen.SetContent(0, 0, 'H', nil, tcell.StyleDefault)
screen.Show()

tui-go example:

root := tui.NewHBox(
    tui.NewLabel("Hello, world!"),
)
ui, _ := tui.New(root)
ui.Run()

Summary

tcell is a lower-level library offering more control and wider platform support, while tui-go provides a higher-level abstraction for creating terminal UIs with less code. tcell is better suited for complex, custom terminal applications, whereas tui-go is ideal for quickly building simple terminal UIs with pre-defined widgets.

Pros of termui

• More feature-rich with a wider variety of UI components and widgets
• Better suited for data visualization with built-in charts and graphs
• More active development and larger community support

Cons of termui

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less flexible layout system compared to tui-go's constraint-based approach
• Heavier dependency footprint

Code Comparison

tui-go example:

box := tui.NewHBox(
    tui.NewLabel("Hello"),
    tui.NewLabel("World!"),
)
ui, err := tui.New(box)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
ui.Run()

termui example:

p := widgets.NewParagraph()
p.Text = "Hello World!"
p.SetRect(0, 0, 25, 5)
ui.Render(p)
uiEvents := ui.PollEvents()
for {
    e := <-uiEvents
    if e.Type == ui.KeyboardEvent {
        break
    }
}

Both libraries offer TUI creation capabilities in Go, but they differ in their approach and feature set. tui-go provides a simpler, more intuitive API with a flexible layout system, making it easier for beginners to get started. termui, on the other hand, offers a wider range of pre-built widgets and better support for data visualization, but with a steeper learning curve. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with TUI development.

Pros of termbox-go

• Lower-level API, offering more fine-grained control over terminal output
• Lighter weight and potentially faster performance
• Wider platform support, including Windows

Cons of termbox-go

• Less feature-rich compared to tui-go's higher-level widgets
• Requires more manual work to create complex UI layouts
• Limited built-in support for styling and theming

Code Comparison

termbox-go example:

termbox.Init()
defer termbox.Close()

termbox.SetCell(10, 10, 'H', termbox.ColorDefault, termbox.ColorDefault)
termbox.Flush()

tui-go example:

box := tui.NewHBox(
    tui.NewLabel("Hello, world!"),
)
ui, err := tui.New(box)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
ui.Run()

Summary

termbox-go provides a lower-level API for terminal manipulation, offering more control but requiring more manual work. tui-go, on the other hand, provides higher-level widgets and abstractions, making it easier to create complex UIs but potentially sacrificing some flexibility and performance. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of control you need over the terminal interface.

Pros of Bubbletea

• More active development and community support
• Built-in support for keyboard input and mouse events
• Simpler API with a focus on functional programming concepts

Cons of Bubbletea

• Steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with functional programming
• Less comprehensive documentation compared to tui-go

Code Comparison

tui-go example:

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

Bubbletea example:

type model struct{}
func (m model) Init() tea.Cmd { return nil }
func (m model) Update(msg tea.Msg) (tea.Model, tea.Cmd) { return m, nil }
func (m model) View() string {
    return "Hello, world!\nPress q to quit."
}

Both libraries offer ways to create terminal user interfaces in Go, but they differ in their approach and syntax. tui-go uses a more traditional object-oriented style, while Bubbletea embraces functional programming concepts with its Model-View-Update architecture. Bubbletea's approach may be more appealing to developers familiar with functional programming, while tui-go might be easier for those coming from an object-oriented background.