Pros of wxWidgets

• Truly native look and feel on each platform
• Simpler licensing (wxWindows License)
• Smaller overall codebase and faster compilation times

Cons of wxWidgets

• Less comprehensive documentation and community resources
• Fewer advanced features and tools compared to Qt
• Less frequent updates and releases

Code Comparison

wxWidgets:

#include <wx/wx.h>

class MyApp : public wxApp {
public:
    virtual bool OnInit();
};

IMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp)

Qt:

#include <QApplication>
#include <QMainWindow>

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
    QApplication app(argc, argv);
    QMainWindow window;
    window.show();
    return app.exec();
}

Both frameworks provide similar functionality for creating GUI applications, but Qt offers a more modern and feature-rich approach with its signal-slot mechanism and extensive set of modules. wxWidgets, on the other hand, focuses on providing a native look and feel across different platforms with a simpler API.

While Qt has a larger ecosystem and more frequent updates, wxWidgets offers a lighter alternative with faster compilation times and a more permissive license. The choice between the two often depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of JUCE

• Specialized for audio applications and plugins
• Simpler learning curve for C++ developers
• More lightweight and focused framework

Cons of JUCE

• Less comprehensive UI toolkit compared to Qt
• Smaller community and ecosystem
• Limited cross-platform support beyond desktop operating systems

Code Comparison

JUCE example (creating a basic window):

class MainComponent : public juce::Component
{
public:
    MainComponent() { setSize(400, 300); }
    void paint(juce::Graphics& g) override
    {
        g.fillAll(juce::Colours::white);
        g.drawText("Hello, World!", getLocalBounds(), juce::Justification::centred, true);
    }
};

Qt example (creating a basic window):

#include <QApplication>
#include <QLabel>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    QApplication app(argc, argv);
    QLabel label("Hello, World!");
    label.show();
    return app.exec();
}

Both frameworks offer C++ APIs for creating graphical user interfaces, but JUCE is more focused on audio applications while Qt provides a more comprehensive toolkit for general-purpose application development. JUCE's code tends to be more concise for audio-related tasks, while Qt offers a wider range of widgets and tools for various application types.

Pros of Kivy

• Easier to learn and use, especially for Python developers
• Better support for mobile and touch-based applications
• More flexible and customizable UI design

Cons of Kivy

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Qt
• Less mature and fewer enterprise-level features
• Limited native look and feel across different platforms

Code Comparison

Kivy:

from kivy.app import App
from kivy.uix.button import Button

class MyApp(App):
    def build(self):
        return Button(text='Hello World')

MyApp().run()

Qt:

import sys
from PyQt5.QtWidgets import QApplication, QPushButton

app = QApplication(sys.argv)
button = QPushButton('Hello World')
button.show()
sys.exit(app.exec_())

Both examples create a simple "Hello World" button application, but Kivy's approach is more Pythonic and concise. Qt requires more boilerplate code and explicit management of the application loop. Kivy's design philosophy focuses on rapid development and cross-platform compatibility, while Qt offers a more comprehensive set of tools and widgets for complex desktop applications.