Pros of go-getter

• More versatile: Supports downloading from various sources (Git, HTTP, S3, etc.)
• Actively maintained: Regular updates and bug fixes
• Broader functionality: Includes features like file decompression and checksumming

Cons of go-getter

• More complex to use: Requires more configuration and setup
• Larger codebase: May have a bigger footprint in projects
• Slower for simple operations: Overhead from additional features

Code Comparison

go-getter:

client := getter.Client{
    Src:  "github.com/hashicorp/go-getter/test-fixtures/basic",
    Dst:  "tmp/git-get",
    Mode: getter.ClientModeDir,
}
err := client.Get()

gox:

err := gox.Build(&gox.BuildOptions{
    OS:   []string{"linux", "darwin"},
    Arch: []string{"amd64", "386"},
})

Summary

go-getter is a more comprehensive solution for fetching and managing remote resources, offering support for various protocols and additional features like decompression. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potential overhead.

gox, on the other hand, is specifically designed for cross-compiling Go applications, making it simpler and more efficient for that particular task. It lacks the versatility of go-getter but excels in its focused functionality.

Choose go-getter for projects requiring flexible resource retrieval from multiple sources, and gox for straightforward cross-compilation of Go projects.

Pros of goreleaser

• More comprehensive release automation, including changelog generation and Docker image creation
• Supports multiple package formats (e.g., deb, rpm, snap) and distribution channels
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and a larger community

Cons of goreleaser

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• May be overkill for simple projects that only need cross-compilation

Code comparison

gox:

package main

import "github.com/mitchellh/gox"

func main() {
    gox.Build()
}

goreleaser:

builds:
  - env:
      - CGO_ENABLED=0
    goos:
      - linux
      - windows
      - darwin

Key differences

• gox focuses primarily on cross-compilation, while goreleaser offers a complete release automation solution
• goreleaser uses a YAML configuration file, whereas gox is typically used programmatically or via command-line flags
• goreleaser integrates with CI/CD pipelines more easily due to its comprehensive feature set

Use cases

• gox: Quick and simple cross-compilation for Go projects
• goreleaser: Full release automation for Go projects, including building, packaging, and publishing

Community and maintenance

• gox: Less active development, smaller community
• goreleaser: Active development, larger community, more frequent updates and contributions

Pros of goxc

• More feature-rich with additional functionality like packaging and versioning
• Supports a wider range of platforms and architectures
• Offers more customization options through configuration files

Cons of goxc

• Less actively maintained (last commit in 2019)
• More complex setup and usage compared to gox
• Slower build times due to additional features

Code Comparison

gox:

gox \
  -os="linux darwin windows" \
  -arch="386 amd64" \
  -output="dist/{{.Dir}}_{{.OS}}_{{.Arch}}" \
  ./...

goxc:

# .goxc.json
{
  "ArtifactsDest": "dist",
  "Tasks": ["xc"],
  "BuildConstraints": "linux,windows,darwin",
  "PackageVersion": "1.0.0",
  "TaskSettings": {
    "xc": {
      "GOARM": "7"
    }
  }
}

gox focuses on simplicity and speed, making it ideal for quick cross-compilation tasks. It's actively maintained and easy to use with a straightforward command-line interface.

goxc offers more advanced features and customization options, making it suitable for complex build processes and packaging requirements. However, it has a steeper learning curve and is less actively maintained.

Both tools serve the purpose of cross-compiling Go projects, but they cater to different use cases and preferences.

Pros of xgo

• Supports CGo-enabled cross-compilation
• Uses Docker containers for consistent build environments
• Supports more platforms and architectures

Cons of xgo

• More complex setup due to Docker dependency
• Slower build times compared to gox
• Larger resource footprint

Code Comparison

xgo

xgo --targets=windows/amd64,linux/arm64,darwin/amd64 .

gox

gox -os="windows linux darwin" -arch="amd64 arm64" .

Key Differences

xgo and gox are both cross-compilation tools for Go, but they differ in their approach and capabilities:

1. CGo support: xgo supports CGo-enabled cross-compilation, while gox does not.
2. Build environment: xgo uses Docker containers for consistent builds across platforms, whereas gox relies on the local Go installation.
3. Platform support: xgo supports a wider range of platforms and architectures compared to gox.
4. Ease of use: gox is simpler to set up and use, while xgo requires Docker and has a steeper learning curve.
5. Build speed: gox generally builds faster due to its simpler approach, while xgo's Docker-based builds can be slower.

Both tools have their strengths and are suitable for different use cases. Choose xgo for more complex projects with CGo dependencies or when targeting a wide range of platforms. Opt for gox when simplicity and speed are priorities for straightforward Go projects.