Pros of zerolog

• Simpler API with a more intuitive, fluent interface
• Slightly faster performance in some benchmarks
• Built-in support for JSON logging by default

Cons of zerolog

• Less flexible configuration options
• Fewer built-in features and integrations
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to zap

Code Comparison

zerolog example:

log := zerolog.New(os.Stdout).With().Timestamp().Logger()
log.Info().Str("key", "value").Msg("Hello World")

zap example:

logger, _ := zap.NewProduction()
defer logger.Sync()
logger.Info("Hello World", zap.String("key", "value"))

Both zap and zerolog are popular logging libraries for Go, offering high-performance structured logging. zap provides more extensive features and configuration options, making it suitable for complex applications. zerolog, on the other hand, offers a simpler API and slightly better performance in some scenarios, making it a good choice for projects prioritizing ease of use and raw speed. The choice between the two often depends on specific project requirements and developer preferences.

Pros of Logrus

• More feature-rich with built-in hooks, formatters, and field types
• Easier to get started with and has a simpler API
• Better compatibility with the standard library's log package

Cons of Logrus

• Generally slower performance compared to Zap
• Less focus on zero-allocation logging, which can impact performance in high-throughput scenarios

Code Comparison

Logrus:

log := logrus.New()
log.WithFields(logrus.Fields{
    "animal": "walrus",
}).Info("A walrus appears")

Zap:

logger, _ := zap.NewProduction()
defer logger.Sync()
logger.Info("A walrus appears",
    zap.String("animal", "walrus"),
)

Key Differences

• Zap is designed for high-performance, zero-allocation logging, making it more suitable for applications with high throughput requirements
• Logrus offers a more familiar and easier-to-use API, especially for developers coming from other logging libraries
• Zap provides better type safety and compile-time checks, while Logrus offers more flexibility with dynamic fields

Both libraries are popular choices for logging in Go applications, with the choice often depending on specific project requirements and performance needs.

Pros of glog

• Simpler API with fewer configuration options, making it easier to get started
• Built-in support for log rotation and log file management
• Familiar to developers coming from C++ projects using Google's glog library

Cons of glog

• Less performant compared to zap, especially for high-volume logging
• Limited flexibility in log formatting and output customization
• Lacks advanced features like structured logging and field-based logging

Code Comparison

glog example:

import "github.com/golang/glog"

glog.Info("Informational message")
glog.Errorf("Error occurred: %v", err)
glog.V(2).Infoln("Verbose message")

zap example:

import "go.uber.org/zap"

logger, _ := zap.NewProduction()
defer logger.Sync()

logger.Info("Informational message")
logger.Error("Error occurred", zap.Error(err))
logger.Debug("Debug message", zap.Int("verbosity", 2))

The code examples demonstrate the basic usage of both libraries. glog uses global functions and a simpler API, while zap requires creating a logger instance and offers more structured logging with typed fields. zap's approach allows for better performance and more flexible log formatting, but may require more initial setup compared to glog's straightforward global functions.

Pros of log15

• Simpler API and easier to get started with
• Built-in support for structured logging
• Flexible and customizable output formatting

Cons of log15

• Lower performance compared to zap
• Less actively maintained (last commit in 2019)
• Fewer advanced features and optimizations

Code Comparison

log15:

log := log15.New("module", "app/server")
log.Info("server started", "port", 8080)

zap:

logger, _ := zap.NewProduction()
defer logger.Sync()
logger.Info("server started", zap.Int("port", 8080))

Key Differences

• log15 uses a simpler key-value pair approach for structured logging
• zap requires explicit type declarations for fields (e.g., zap.Int)
• zap offers better performance and more advanced features
• log15 provides an easier learning curve for beginners

Use Cases

• Choose log15 for simpler projects or when getting started with structured logging
• Opt for zap in high-performance applications or when advanced features are needed

Community and Ecosystem

• zap has a larger community and more frequent updates
• log15 has a smaller but dedicated user base

Both libraries offer structured logging capabilities, but zap excels in performance and advanced features, while log15 provides a simpler API and easier adoption for newcomers to structured logging in Go.

Pros of Lumberjack

• Focused solely on log file rotation and management
• Simple and lightweight, easy to integrate with existing logging solutions
• Supports compression of rotated log files

Cons of Lumberjack

• Limited functionality compared to Zap's comprehensive logging features
• Lacks built-in structured logging capabilities
• No support for log levels or sampling

Code Comparison

Lumberjack (used with standard log package):

log.SetOutput(&lumberjack.Logger{
    Filename:   "/var/log/myapp/foo.log",
    MaxSize:    500, // megabytes
    MaxBackups: 3,
    MaxAge:     28, // days
    Compress:   true,
})
log.Println("This is a log message")

Zap:

logger, _ := zap.NewProduction()
defer logger.Sync()
logger.Info("This is a log message",
    zap.String("key", "value"),
    zap.Int("count", 42),
)

Lumberjack focuses on log file management, while Zap provides a full-featured logging solution with structured logging, performance optimizations, and more advanced capabilities. Lumberjack is often used in conjunction with other logging libraries, whereas Zap is a standalone solution for all logging needs.

Pros of apex/log

• Simpler API with less configuration required
• Built-in support for multiple output handlers (e.g., CLI, Logfmt, JSON)
• Easier to get started for small to medium-sized projects

Cons of apex/log

• Lower performance compared to zap, especially for high-throughput logging
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

apex/log:

log.WithFields(log.Fields{
    "user": user.ID,
    "action": "login",
}).Info("User logged in")

zap:

logger.Info("User logged in",
    zap.String("user", user.ID),
    zap.String("action", "login"),
)

Summary

apex/log is a simpler logging library that's easier to set up and use for smaller projects. It offers built-in support for multiple output formats and a straightforward API. However, it lacks the performance optimizations and advanced features of zap, making it less suitable for high-throughput or complex logging scenarios. zap, on the other hand, provides better performance and more customization options but requires more initial configuration and has a steeper learning curve.