Pros of webview

• Simpler API and easier to use for basic web-based GUIs
• Lighter weight and smaller footprint
• Uses system's native web engine, reducing dependencies

Cons of webview

• Less feature-rich compared to Sciter's capabilities
• Limited customization options for UI components
• Potentially less consistent cross-platform appearance

Code Comparison

webview:

package main

import "github.com/webview/webview"

func main() {
    w := webview.New(true)
    defer w.Destroy()
    w.SetTitle("Minimal webview example")
    w.SetSize(800, 600, webview.HintNone)
    w.Navigate("https://example.com")
    w.Run()
}

go-sciter:

package main

import "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter"
import "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter/window"

func main() {
    w, _ := window.New(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
    w.SetTitle("Minimal Sciter example")
    w.LoadFile("example.html")
    w.Show()
    w.Run()
}

The code examples demonstrate that webview has a more straightforward API for basic use cases, while go-sciter requires more setup but offers greater control over the window and content loading.

Pros of Wails

• Uses standard web technologies (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) for UI development, making it more accessible to web developers
• Supports hot reloading, enabling faster development and iteration
• Offers built-in tooling for building and packaging applications

Cons of Wails

• Larger application size due to bundling of web technologies
• Potentially slower performance compared to native UI frameworks
• Limited to Go programming language for backend logic

Code Comparison

Wails:

package main

import (
    "github.com/wailsapp/wails"
)

func main() {
    app := wails.CreateApp(&wails.AppConfig{
        Width:  1024,
        Height: 768,
        Title:  "My Wails App",
    })
    app.Run()
}

Go-sciter:

package main

import (
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter"
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter/window"
)

func main() {
    w, _ := window.New(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
    w.LoadFile("index.html")
    w.Show()
    w.Run()
}

Both frameworks aim to simplify desktop application development using Go, but they differ in their approach. Wails leverages web technologies, making it more familiar to web developers, while Go-sciter uses its own lightweight rendering engine. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, team expertise, and performance considerations.

Pros of go-astilectron

• Built on Electron, allowing for a more feature-rich and modern web-based UI
• Supports multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux) out of the box
• Larger community and ecosystem due to Electron's popularity

Cons of go-astilectron

• Larger application size due to bundling Chromium and Node.js
• Higher memory usage compared to native or lightweight alternatives
• Potentially slower startup times and performance overhead

Code Comparison

go-astilectron:

astilectron.New(astilectron.Options{
    AppName: "MyApp",
    AppIconDefaultPath: "icon.png",
}).Run()

go-sciter:

w, _ := sciter.CreateWindow(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
w.LoadFile("index.html")
w.Show()

go-astilectron uses Electron's architecture, allowing for more complex web-based UIs, while go-sciter provides a lightweight native UI solution with HTML/CSS rendering. go-astilectron may be preferred for larger applications with rich interfaces, while go-sciter is suitable for smaller, performance-sensitive projects. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your application, balancing features, performance, and resource usage.

Pros of Qt

• More comprehensive GUI toolkit with a wider range of widgets and controls
• Cross-platform support for desktop and mobile platforms
• Large and active community with extensive documentation and resources

Cons of Qt

• Larger binary size and resource footprint
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Licensing considerations for commercial applications

Code Comparison

Qt:

package main

import (
    "os"
    "github.com/therecipe/qt/widgets"
)

func main() {
    app := widgets.NewQApplication(len(os.Args), os.Args)
    window := widgets.NewQMainWindow(nil, 0)
    window.SetWindowTitle("Hello Qt")
    window.Show()
    app.Exec()
}

go-sciter:

package main

import (
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter"
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter/window"
)

func main() {
    w, _ := window.New(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
    w.SetTitle("Hello Sciter")
    w.Show()
    w.Run()
}

Both Qt and go-sciter provide ways to create GUI applications in Go, but Qt offers a more feature-rich toolkit at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage. go-sciter, while lighter and easier to start with, may have limitations for more complex applications. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as platform support, performance needs, and desired feature set.

Pros of Fyne

• Pure Go implementation, no external dependencies
• Cross-platform support with native look and feel
• Active development and community support

Cons of Fyne

• Larger application size due to bundled resources
• Limited styling options compared to HTML/CSS

Code Comparison

Fyne:

package main

import (
    "fyne.io/fyne/v2/app"
    "fyne.io/fyne/v2/widget"
)

func main() {
    a := app.New()
    w := a.NewWindow("Hello")
    w.SetContent(widget.NewLabel("Hello, Fyne!"))
    w.ShowAndRun()
}

go-sciter:

package main

import (
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter"
    "github.com/sciter-sdk/go-sciter/window"
)

func main() {
    w, _ := window.New(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE, nil)
    w.LoadFile("hello.html")
    w.SetTitle("Hello")
    w.Show()
    w.Run()
}

The code comparison shows that Fyne uses a more Go-centric approach, creating UI elements directly in Go code. go-sciter, on the other hand, relies on HTML files for UI definition, which may be more familiar to web developers but requires additional file management.

Fyne's pure Go implementation makes it easier to distribute and deploy applications, while go-sciter's use of the Sciter engine allows for more complex UI designs using HTML and CSS.

Pros of go-app

• Cross-platform development: Build web, desktop, and mobile apps from a single codebase
• Progressive Web App (PWA) support: Easily create installable web apps with offline capabilities
• Server-side rendering: Improves initial load times and SEO

Cons of go-app

• Steeper learning curve: Requires understanding Go-specific concepts for UI development
• Limited native UI components: May not provide the same level of native look and feel as Sciter

Code Comparison

go-app:

type hello struct {
    app.Compo
}

func (h *hello) Render() app.UI {
    return app.H1().Text("Hello World!")
}

go-sciter:

w, err := window.New(sciter.SW_TITLEBAR|sciter.SW_RESIZEABLE|sciter.SW_CONTROLS|sciter.SW_MAIN|sciter.SW_ENABLE_DEBUG, nil)
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
w.LoadFile("hello.html")
w.Show()

go-app focuses on a component-based approach using Go structs, while go-sciter relies more on HTML files for UI definition and uses Go primarily for window management and event handling. go-app provides a more integrated Go-centric development experience, while go-sciter offers closer integration with native UI elements through Sciter's rendering engine.