Pros of cli

• Comprehensive CLI application framework with support for subcommands, flags, and arguments
• Built-in help generation and version information
• Extensible with custom command implementations

Cons of cli

• More complex setup and usage compared to a simple progress bar
• Larger codebase and potentially higher learning curve
• May be overkill for projects that only need basic CLI functionality

Code Comparison

progressbar:

bar := progressbar.Default(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    bar.Add(1)
    time.Sleep(40 * time.Millisecond)
}

cli:

c := cli.NewCLI("app", "1.0.0")
c.Args = os.Args[1:]
c.Commands = map[string]cli.CommandFactory{
    "foo": fooCommandFactory,
}
c.Run()

Summary

progressbar is a lightweight library focused on creating progress bars for CLI applications, while cli is a more comprehensive framework for building full-featured command-line interfaces. progressbar is simpler to use for basic progress tracking, while cli offers more advanced features for complex CLI applications with multiple commands and options.

Pros of pb

• More feature-rich with multiple progress bar styles and customization options
• Better support for concurrent progress bars
• Includes a pool feature for managing multiple bars efficiently

Cons of pb

• Slightly more complex API, which may have a steeper learning curve
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to progressbar

Code Comparison

progressbar:

bar := progressbar.Default(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    bar.Add(1)
    time.Sleep(40 * time.Millisecond)
}

pb:

bar := pb.StartNew(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    bar.Increment()
    time.Sleep(40 * time.Millisecond)
}
bar.Finish()

Summary

Both progressbar and pb are popular Go libraries for creating progress bars. progressbar offers a simpler API and is actively maintained, making it a good choice for straightforward use cases. pb provides more advanced features and customization options, which can be beneficial for complex projects requiring multiple progress bars or specific styling. The choice between the two depends on the project's requirements and the developer's preference for simplicity versus feature richness.

Pros of mpb

• More feature-rich with support for multiple concurrent progress bars
• Offers greater customization options for bar appearance and behavior
• Provides better support for dynamic updates and real-time statistics

Cons of mpb

• Slightly more complex API, which may require a steeper learning curve
• Larger codebase and dependencies, potentially increasing project size

Code Comparison

mpb:

p := mpb.New(mpb.WithWidth(64))
bar := p.AddBar(100,
    mpb.PrependDecorators(
        decor.Percentage(),
    ),
    mpb.AppendDecorators(
        decor.ETA(decor.ET_STYLE_GO),
    ),
)

progressbar:

bar := progressbar.Default(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    bar.Add(1)
    time.Sleep(40 * time.Millisecond)
}

mpb offers more flexibility in configuring the progress bar's appearance and behavior, while progressbar provides a simpler, more straightforward API for basic use cases. mpb's support for multiple concurrent progress bars makes it better suited for complex applications, whereas progressbar is ideal for simpler scenarios where ease of use is prioritized over advanced features.

Pros of uiprogress

• Supports multiple concurrent progress bars
• Offers more customization options for progress bar appearance
• Provides a wider range of progress bar types (e.g., indeterminate)

Cons of uiprogress

• Less actively maintained (last update in 2019)
• Slightly more complex API for basic use cases
• Fewer stars and contributors on GitHub

Code Comparison

uiprogress:

bar := uiprogress.AddBar(100)
bar.AppendCompleted()
bar.PrependElapsed()
for i := 0; i <= 100; i++ {
    bar.Incr()
    time.Sleep(time.Millisecond * 20)
}

progressbar:

bar := progressbar.Default(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
    bar.Add(1)
    time.Sleep(time.Millisecond * 20)
}

Both libraries offer simple ways to create and update progress bars, but uiprogress provides more built-in options for customization out of the box. progressbar has a slightly more straightforward API for basic use cases, making it easier to get started quickly. However, uiprogress's ability to handle multiple concurrent progress bars and its wider range of progress bar types make it more suitable for complex applications with diverse progress tracking needs.