Pros of Ebiten

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Better performance, especially for mobile and web platforms
• More comprehensive documentation and examples

Cons of Ebiten

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less built-in functionality for common game development tasks
• Requires more low-level implementation for certain features

Code Comparison

Oak example:

type player struct {
    oak.Entity
}

func (p *player) Init() {
    p.SetDimensions(32, 32)
}

Ebiten example:

type Game struct{}

func (g *Game) Update() error {
    // Update game logic
    return nil
}

func (g *Game) Draw(screen *ebiten.Image) {
    // Draw game elements
}

Oak provides a more high-level, entity-based approach, while Ebiten offers a lower-level, more flexible structure. Oak's entity system simplifies object management, whereas Ebiten requires manual implementation of game objects and their behaviors.

Both libraries have their strengths, with Oak being more beginner-friendly and Ebiten offering greater performance and flexibility for experienced developers.

Pros of Pixel

• Simpler API with a focus on 2D graphics and game development
• More active community and frequent updates
• Better documentation and examples for beginners

Cons of Pixel

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to Oak
• Limited built-in audio support
• Fewer high-level game development abstractions

Code Comparison

Pixel:

win, err := pixelgl.NewWindow(pixelgl.WindowConfig{
    Title:  "Pixel Rocks!",
    Bounds: pixel.R(0, 0, 1024, 768),
})

Oak:

oak.Add("scene",
    func(string, interface{}) {
        oak.SetViewportBounds(0, 0, 1024, 768)
    },
    func() bool { return true },
    func() (string, *scene.Result) { return "scene", nil },
)

Summary

Pixel is a lightweight 2D game library focused on simplicity and ease of use, making it ideal for beginners and small projects. Oak, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive set of features and abstractions for game development, including built-in scene management and entity-component systems. While Pixel has a more active community and better documentation, Oak provides more advanced tools for larger and more complex game projects.

Pros of go-sdl2

• Direct bindings to SDL2, providing low-level access and control
• Wider range of multimedia capabilities, including audio and input handling
• More mature and established project with a larger community

Cons of go-sdl2

• Steeper learning curve due to lower-level API
• Requires more boilerplate code for basic functionality
• Less Go-idiomatic, as it closely mirrors the C SDL2 API

Code Comparison

oak:

window, err := oak.SetupWindow(640, 480, "My Game")
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}

go-sdl2:

if err := sdl.Init(sdl.INIT_EVERYTHING); err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
defer sdl.Quit()
window, err := sdl.CreateWindow("My Game", sdl.WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, sdl.WINDOWPOS_UNDEFINED, 640, 480, sdl.WINDOW_SHOWN)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
defer window.Destroy()

Pros of raylib-go

• Bindings for the popular raylib C library, providing access to a well-established and optimized graphics framework
• Extensive documentation and examples available due to raylib's mature ecosystem
• Cross-platform support for desktop and web (via WebAssembly)

Cons of raylib-go

• Requires C dependencies, which may complicate setup and deployment
• Less idiomatic Go code due to being a wrapper around a C library
• Limited to raylib's feature set and design decisions

Code Comparison

raylib-go:

rl.InitWindow(800, 450, "raylib [core] example - basic window")
defer rl.CloseWindow()

for !rl.WindowShouldClose() {
    rl.BeginDrawing()
    rl.ClearBackground(rl.RayWhite)
    rl.DrawText("Congrats! You created your first window!", 190, 200, 20, rl.LightGray)
    rl.EndDrawing()
}

oak:

func main() {
    oak.Add("scene",
        func(*scene.Context) {
            render.Draw(text.New("Hello World", 0, 0))
        },
        func(*scene.Context) bool {
            return true
        },
    )
    oak.Init("scene")
}

Pros of engo

• More comprehensive ECS (Entity Component System) architecture
• Better support for 3D game development
• Larger and more active community, potentially leading to more resources and support

Cons of engo

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex architecture
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to oak
• Potentially overkill for simple 2D games or prototypes

Code Comparison

oak:

type Player struct {
    oak.Entity
    speed float64
}

func (p *Player) Init() {
    p.SetDimensions(16, 16)
}

engo:

type Player struct {
    ecs.BasicEntity
    common.RenderComponent
    common.SpaceComponent
}

func NewPlayer(world *ecs.World) {
    player := Player{BasicEntity: ecs.NewBasic()}
    player.RenderComponent = common.RenderComponent{...}
    player.SpaceComponent = common.SpaceComponent{...}
    world.AddEntity(&player)
}

The code comparison shows that engo uses a more explicit ECS structure, while oak provides a simpler entity setup. engo requires more boilerplate code but offers greater flexibility and separation of concerns. oak's approach is more straightforward and may be easier for beginners or smaller projects.