Pros of readline

• More feature-rich, including support for multi-line editing and custom key bindings
• Better performance, especially for large histories
• More actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of readline

• Larger codebase and more complex to integrate
• May have compatibility issues with some terminal emulators
• Requires cgo, which can complicate cross-compilation

Code comparison

liner:

line, err := liner.NewLiner()
defer line.Close()
input, err := line.Prompt("Enter input: ")

readline:

rl, err := readline.New("> ")
defer rl.Close()
line, err := rl.Readline()

Summary

Both liner and readline are Go libraries for handling interactive command-line input. readline offers more advanced features and better performance, making it suitable for complex CLI applications. However, liner is simpler to integrate and doesn't require cgo, which can be advantageous for certain projects. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your application, such as feature needs, performance considerations, and cross-compilation requirements.

Pros of go-prompt

• More feature-rich with advanced completion and suggestion capabilities
• Supports multi-line input and syntax highlighting
• Offers a more modern and customizable user interface

Cons of go-prompt

• Higher memory usage and performance overhead
• More complex to implement and configure
• Less suitable for simple command-line applications

Code Comparison

liner:

line, err := liner.Prompt("> ")
if err != nil {
    fmt.Println("Error:", err)
    return
}

go-prompt:

p := prompt.New(
    executor,
    completer,
    prompt.OptionPrefix("> "),
)
p.Run()

Key Differences

• liner is lightweight and focuses on basic line editing functionality
• go-prompt provides a more comprehensive prompt experience with advanced features
• liner is better suited for simple CLI tools, while go-prompt excels in interactive applications

Use Cases

• Choose liner for basic command-line interfaces with minimal requirements
• Opt for go-prompt when building interactive shells or complex CLI applications

Community and Maintenance

• liner has been around longer and has a stable API
• go-prompt is actively maintained with regular updates and new features

Performance Considerations

• liner has lower memory footprint and faster startup times
• go-prompt offers better performance for complex autocompletion scenarios

Pros of promptui

• More feature-rich with support for various input types (select, confirm, password)
• Offers customizable styling and theming options
• Provides built-in validation and transformation of user input

Cons of promptui

• Larger and more complex codebase, potentially harder to integrate
• May have a steeper learning curve for basic use cases
• Slower development and fewer recent updates compared to liner

Code Comparison

liner:

line, err := liner.Prompt("Enter your name: ")
if err != nil {
    // Handle error
}
fmt.Printf("Hello, %s!\n", line)

promptui:

prompt := promptui.Prompt{
    Label: "Enter your name",
}
result, err := prompt.Run()
if err != nil {
    // Handle error
}
fmt.Printf("Hello, %s!\n", result)

Summary

liner is a simpler, lightweight library focused on line editing functionality, while promptui offers a more comprehensive set of features for building interactive command-line interfaces. liner may be preferable for basic input needs, while promptui shines in scenarios requiring more advanced user interactions and customization. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of complexity you're willing to manage.

Pros of Survey

• More feature-rich, offering various question types (input, select, confirm, etc.)
• Supports complex survey flows with conditional questions and validation
• Better suited for creating interactive CLI applications with multi-step prompts

Cons of Survey

• Heavier and more complex to set up for simple input scenarios
• May have a steeper learning curve for basic use cases
• Potentially slower for single-line input operations

Code Comparison

Survey:

prompt := &survey.Input{
    Message: "Enter your name:",
}
survey.AskOne(prompt, &name)

Liner:

line := liner.NewLiner()
defer line.Close()
name, _ := line.Prompt("Enter your name: ")

Summary

Survey is a more comprehensive solution for creating interactive command-line interfaces with various question types and complex flows. It's ideal for applications requiring multi-step user input or surveys.

Liner, on the other hand, is a simpler library focused on providing readline-like functionality. It's more lightweight and straightforward for basic input scenarios but lacks the advanced features of Survey.

Choose Survey for complex CLI applications with diverse input requirements, and Liner for simpler projects needing basic line editing and history functionality.

Pros of ishell

• Provides a more comprehensive framework for building interactive shells
• Offers built-in support for command suggestions and auto-completion
• Includes features like command history and customizable prompts out-of-the-box

Cons of ishell

• May be overkill for simpler line editing needs
• Has a steeper learning curve due to its more extensive API
• Potentially higher memory footprint for basic use cases

Code Comparison

ishell example:

shell := ishell.New()
shell.AddCmd(&ishell.Cmd{
    Name: "greet",
    Help: "greet user",
    Func: func(c *ishell.Context) {
        c.Println("Hello!")
    },
})
shell.Run()

liner example:

line := liner.NewLiner()
defer line.Close()
for {
    if input, err := line.Prompt("> "); err == nil {
        fmt.Println("You entered:", input)
    }
}

ishell provides a more structured approach to building interactive shells with built-in command handling, while liner focuses on basic line editing functionality. ishell is better suited for complex CLI applications, whereas liner is more appropriate for simpler input scenarios or as a building block for custom shell implementations.

Pros of gocui

• Provides a full-featured text-based user interface (TUI) framework
• Supports multiple views and layouts for complex terminal applications
• Offers event-driven programming with customizable keybindings

Cons of gocui

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Heavier resource usage for simple command-line interfaces
• Less suitable for basic line editing tasks

Code Comparison

gocui example:

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

g.SetManagerFunc(layout)

liner example:

line := liner.NewLiner()
defer line.Close()

name, err := line.Prompt("What is your name? ")
if err != nil {
    log.Print("Error reading line: ", err)
}

Summary

gocui is a comprehensive TUI framework suitable for building complex terminal applications with multiple views and layouts. It offers more flexibility but requires more setup and resources. liner, on the other hand, is a simpler library focused on providing line editing capabilities for command-line interfaces. It's easier to use for basic input tasks but lacks the advanced features of gocui.