Pros of mapstructure

• More flexible and powerful for complex struct decoding
• Better support for custom decoding logic and hooks
• Handles nested structures and slices more effectively

Cons of mapstructure

• Slightly more complex API, requiring more setup for basic use cases
• Less focus on type conversion, primarily designed for decoding

Code Comparison

mapstructure:

type Person struct {
    Name string
    Age  int
}

var m = map[string]interface{}{"name": "Alice", "age": "30"}
var result Person
mapstructure.Decode(m, &result)

cast:

type Person struct {
    Name string
    Age  int
}

var m = map[string]interface{}{"name": "Alice", "age": "30"}
name := cast.ToString(m["name"])
age := cast.ToInt(m["age"])

Summary

mapstructure excels in complex decoding scenarios, offering more flexibility and power for handling nested structures and custom decoding logic. However, it has a slightly steeper learning curve compared to cast.

cast, on the other hand, focuses on simple type conversions and is more straightforward for basic use cases. It's particularly useful when dealing with individual value conversions rather than full struct decoding.

Choose mapstructure for complex struct decoding tasks, especially when dealing with nested structures or requiring custom decoding logic. Opt for cast when you need quick and easy type conversions for individual values.

Pros of validator

• More comprehensive validation functionality, including struct and field validation
• Supports custom validation functions and error messages
• Offers both single field and full struct validation

Cons of validator

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Requires more setup and configuration for advanced use cases

Code Comparison

validator:

type User struct {
    Name  string `validate:"required"`
    Email string `validate:"required,email"`
    Age   int    `validate:"gte=0,lte=130"`
}

err := validate.Struct(user)

cast:

age := cast.ToInt(ageString)
email := cast.ToString(emailInterface)

Key Differences

• validator focuses on data validation, while cast primarily handles type conversion
• validator operates on structs and fields, cast works with individual values
• validator offers more extensive validation options, cast provides simpler type casting

Use Cases

• Use validator for complex data validation scenarios, especially when working with structs
• Choose cast for straightforward type conversions and basic data manipulation

Community and Maintenance

Both projects are actively maintained and have strong community support. validator has more stars and contributors on GitHub, indicating wider adoption for validation tasks.

Pros of govalidator

• Focuses on data validation and sanitization
• Provides a wide range of built-in validation functions
• Supports custom validation rules and error messages

Cons of govalidator

• Limited type conversion capabilities
• Less flexible for general-purpose data manipulation
• May require additional libraries for complex data transformations

Code Comparison

govalidator:

isEmail := govalidator.IsEmail("example@email.com")
sanitized := govalidator.Trim("  hello  ", " ")
isURL := govalidator.IsURL("https://example.com")

cast:

age := cast.ToInt("25")
isTrue := cast.ToBool("true")
floatVal := cast.ToFloat64("3.14")

Summary

govalidator excels in data validation and sanitization, offering numerous built-in functions and custom rule support. However, it lacks the extensive type conversion capabilities of cast. On the other hand, cast provides powerful and flexible type conversion functions but doesn't focus on data validation.

Choose govalidator for projects requiring robust input validation and sanitization. Opt for cast when dealing with diverse data types and needing flexible type conversions. For comprehensive data handling, consider using both libraries in conjunction to leverage their respective strengths.

Pros of ozzo-validation

• More comprehensive validation framework with built-in rules for various data types
• Supports custom validation rules and error messages
• Allows for struct-level validation in addition to field-level validation

Cons of ozzo-validation

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Potentially slower performance for simple type conversions
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic use cases

Code Comparison

cast:

age, err := cast.ToInt(ageString)
if err != nil {
    // handle error
}

ozzo-validation:

type User struct {
    Age int `json:"age"`
}

err := validation.ValidateStruct(&user,
    validation.Field(&user.Age, validation.Required, validation.Min(18)),
)
if err != nil {
    // handle validation errors
}

Summary

cast is focused on simple type conversions and is easier to use for basic scenarios. ozzo-validation provides a more robust validation framework with extensive options but requires more setup. Choose cast for quick type conversions and ozzo-validation for comprehensive data validation needs.

Pros of validate

• More comprehensive validation features, including built-in rules for common scenarios
• Supports custom validation rules and messages
• Offers both struct tag-based and map-based validation approaches

Cons of validate

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less focus on type conversion compared to cast
• May be overkill for simple validation needs

Code comparison

validate:

type User struct {
    Name  string `validate:"required|minLen:5"`
    Email string `validate:"required|email"`
}

v := validate.Struct(user)
if v.Validate() {
    fmt.Println("Validation passed")
}

cast:

name := cast.ToString(value)
age := cast.ToInt(value)
isActive := cast.ToBool(value)

Summary

validate is a more feature-rich validation library, offering extensive validation rules and customization options. It's ideal for complex validation scenarios but may be more complex to use.

cast focuses primarily on type conversion and is simpler to use for basic data transformation needs. It lacks built-in validation features but excels in straightforward type casting operations.

Choose validate for comprehensive validation requirements, and cast for simple type conversion tasks.