Pros of ImGui

• More feature-rich with extensive UI elements and customization options
• Larger community and ecosystem, with numerous bindings and extensions
• Better documentation and examples for various use cases

Cons of ImGui

• Larger codebase and higher complexity, potentially harder to integrate
• Higher memory footprint and performance overhead for simple applications
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its extensive API

Code Comparison

MicroUI:

mu_begin(ctx);
if (mu_button(ctx, "Hello")) {
  printf("Button pressed\n");
}
mu_end(ctx);

ImGui:

ImGui::Begin("Window");
if (ImGui::Button("Hello")) {
  std::cout << "Button pressed" << std::endl;
}
ImGui::End();

Summary

MicroUI is a lightweight, simple-to-use immediate mode GUI library, while ImGui offers a more comprehensive set of features and wider adoption. MicroUI is better suited for small projects or resource-constrained environments, whereas ImGui excels in larger applications requiring advanced UI capabilities. The code comparison shows that both libraries share a similar immediate mode paradigm, but ImGui's syntax is slightly more verbose due to its C++ nature and additional features.

Pros of Nuklear

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced widgets and layout options
• Better cross-platform support and integration with various rendering backends
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Nuklear

• Larger codebase and higher complexity, potentially harder to integrate
• Steeper learning curve due to more extensive API
• Higher memory footprint compared to microui

Code Comparison

microui:

mu_begin(ctx);
if (mu_button(ctx, "Hello")) {
    printf("Button pressed\n");
}
mu_end(ctx);

Nuklear:

if (nk_begin(ctx, "Window", nk_rect(50, 50, 200, 200),
    NK_WINDOW_BORDER|NK_WINDOW_MOVABLE|NK_WINDOW_SCALABLE|
    NK_WINDOW_MINIMIZABLE|NK_WINDOW_TITLE))
{
    if (nk_button_label(ctx, "Hello")) {
        printf("Button pressed\n");
    }
}
nk_end(ctx);

Both libraries offer immediate mode GUI functionality, but Nuklear provides more advanced features and customization options at the cost of increased complexity. microui focuses on simplicity and minimal overhead, making it easier to integrate into smaller projects or those with limited resources.

Pros of Nuklear

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced widgets and layout options
• Wider platform support and integration with various rendering backends
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Nuklear

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive API
• Larger codebase and memory footprint
• More challenging to customize and extend

Code Comparison

Nuklear:

struct nk_context ctx;
nk_init_default(&ctx, 0);
if (nk_begin(&ctx, "Demo", nk_rect(50, 50, 200, 200),
    NK_WINDOW_BORDER|NK_WINDOW_MOVABLE|NK_WINDOW_SCALABLE|
    NK_WINDOW_MINIMIZABLE|NK_WINDOW_TITLE))
{
    nk_layout_row_dynamic(&ctx, 30, 1);
    if (nk_button_label(&ctx, "Button")) {
        // Button clicked
    }
}
nk_end(&ctx);

Microui:

mu_Context ctx;
mu_init(&ctx);
if (mu_begin_window(&ctx, "Demo", mu_rect(50, 50, 200, 200))) {
    if (mu_button(&ctx, "Button")) {
        // Button clicked
    }
    mu_end_window(&ctx);
}

The code comparison shows that Microui has a simpler API with fewer options, while Nuklear offers more granular control over window properties and layout.

Pros of libui

• Cross-platform native GUI toolkit for multiple languages (C, C++, Go, etc.)
• Provides a more comprehensive set of UI controls and widgets
• Better suited for complex, full-featured desktop applications

Cons of libui

• Larger codebase and more complex to integrate
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May be overkill for simple GUI applications or prototypes

Code Comparison

microui example:

mu_begin(ctx);
if (mu_begin_window(ctx, "My Window", mu_rect(10, 10, 200, 100))) {
  mu_label(ctx, "Hello world!");
  mu_end_window(ctx);
}
mu_end(ctx);

libui example:

uiInit(&options);
uiWindow *window = uiNewWindow("My Window", 200, 100, 0);
uiLabel *label = uiNewLabel("Hello world!");
uiBoxAppend(uiNewVerticalBox(), uiControl(label), 0);
uiWindowSetChild(window, uiControl(box));
uiControlShow(uiControl(window));
uiMain();

microui is more lightweight and easier to integrate for simple GUIs, while libui offers more features and native look-and-feel across platforms at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of raygui

• More comprehensive feature set with a wider range of UI elements
• Integrated with the raylib game programming library for seamless integration
• Active development and community support

Cons of raygui

• Larger codebase and potentially higher memory footprint
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

microui:

mu_begin(ctx);
if (mu_button(ctx, "Hello")) {
    printf("Button pressed\n");
}
mu_end(ctx);

raygui:

GuiSetStyle(DEFAULT, TEXT_SIZE, 20);
if (GuiButton((Rectangle){ 50, 50, 100, 30 }, "Hello")) {
    printf("Button pressed\n");
}

Summary

microui is a minimalist immediate mode GUI library, focusing on simplicity and small code size. raygui offers a more feature-rich GUI toolkit integrated with raylib, providing a wider range of UI elements and styling options. While microui is easier to integrate into existing projects due to its simplicity, raygui may be more suitable for larger applications or those already using raylib. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, existing technology stack, and desired level of customization.