wxWidgets

Pros of FLTK

• Lightweight and fast, with minimal dependencies
• Simple and easy to learn, especially for beginners
• Highly portable across different platforms

Cons of FLTK

• Limited set of widgets and features compared to wxWidgets
• Less modern look and feel, especially on newer operating systems
• Smaller community and fewer resources available

Code Comparison

FLTK:

#include <FL/Fl.H>
#include <FL/Fl_Window.H>
#include <FL/Fl_Button.H>

int main() {
    Fl_Window *window = new Fl_Window(300, 180);
    Fl_Button *button = new Fl_Button(20, 40, 260, 100, "Click me!");
    window->end();
    window->show();
    return Fl::run();
}

wxWidgets:

#include <wx/wx.h>

class MyApp : public wxApp {
public:
    virtual bool OnInit() {
        wxFrame *frame = new wxFrame(NULL, wxID_ANY, "Hello World");
        wxButton *button = new wxButton(frame, wxID_ANY, "Click me!");
        frame->Show(true);
        return true;
    }
};

wxIMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp);

Both FLTK and wxWidgets are cross-platform GUI toolkits, but they cater to different needs. FLTK is more suitable for lightweight applications and embedded systems, while wxWidgets offers a richer set of features and a more native look on different platforms. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Pros of Kivy

• Cross-platform support for mobile devices (iOS, Android) in addition to desktop
• Modern, touch-friendly UI with GPU acceleration
• Python-based, allowing for rapid development and prototyping

Cons of Kivy

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to wxWidgets
• Less native look-and-feel on desktop platforms
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to its unique approach

Code Comparison

Kivy example:

from kivy.app import App
from kivy.uix.button import Button

class MyApp(App):
    def build(self):
        return Button(text='Hello World')

MyApp().run()

wxWidgets example:

#include <wx/wx.h>

class MyApp : public wxApp {
public:
    virtual bool OnInit() {
        wxFrame *frame = new wxFrame(NULL, wxID_ANY, "Hello World");
        frame->Show(true);
        return true;
    }
};

wxIMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp);

Both examples create a simple window with a button or text, showcasing the basic structure of applications in each framework. Kivy's Python-based approach is more concise, while wxWidgets offers a more traditional C++ structure.

Pros of JUCE

• Specialized for audio applications and plugins
• Modern C++ design with extensive audio-specific features
• Cross-platform support for desktop and mobile

Cons of JUCE

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to wxWidgets
• More focused on audio/multimedia, less suitable for general-purpose GUI applications
• Licensing can be more restrictive for commercial use

Code Comparison

JUCE example:

class MainComponent : public juce::Component
{
public:
    MainComponent()
    {
        addAndMakeVisible(button);
        button.onClick = [this] { handleButtonClick(); };
    }
private:
    juce::TextButton button {"Click me"};
};

wxWidgets example:

class MainFrame : public wxFrame
{
public:
    MainFrame() : wxFrame(nullptr, wxID_ANY, "My App")
    {
        auto button = new wxButton(this, wxID_ANY, "Click me");
        button->Bind(wxEVT_BUTTON, &MainFrame::OnButtonClick, this);
    }
};

Both frameworks provide cross-platform GUI development capabilities, but JUCE is more specialized for audio applications, while wxWidgets offers a broader range of general-purpose GUI components. JUCE uses a more modern C++ approach, while wxWidgets has a larger community and more extensive documentation.

Pros of ImGui

• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Immediate mode GUI, allowing for dynamic and flexible interfaces
• Excellent for debugging tools and quick prototyping

Cons of ImGui

• Limited built-in widgets compared to wxWidgets
• Less suitable for complex, full-featured desktop applications
• Requires more manual management of UI state

Code Comparison

ImGui example:

ImGui::Begin("My Window");
if (ImGui::Button("Click me!"))
    doSomething();
ImGui::End();

wxWidgets example:

wxFrame* frame = new wxFrame(NULL, wxID_ANY, "My Window");
wxButton* button = new wxButton(frame, wxID_ANY, "Click me!");
button->Bind(wxEVT_BUTTON, &MyFrame::OnButtonClick, this);

Summary

ImGui is ideal for lightweight, immediate-mode GUI applications, particularly for debugging and prototyping. It offers simplicity and flexibility but may require more manual state management.

wxWidgets is better suited for complex, full-featured desktop applications with a wide range of built-in widgets and native look-and-feel across platforms. It follows a more traditional event-driven programming model.

Choose ImGui for rapid development and integration into existing projects, especially for tools and debug interfaces. Opt for wxWidgets when building comprehensive desktop applications with rich user interfaces and native platform integration.

Pros of sol2

• Lightweight and header-only library for Lua C++ binding
• Easier integration with existing C++ projects
• Faster compilation times due to its header-only nature

Cons of sol2

• Limited to Lua scripting, while wxWidgets offers a full GUI toolkit
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to wxWidgets
• Less comprehensive documentation and tutorials

Code Comparison

sol2 (Lua binding):

#include <sol/sol.hpp>

sol::state lua;
lua.open_libraries(sol::lib::base);
lua["x"] = 10;
lua.script("print(x)");

wxWidgets (GUI creation):

#include <wx/wx.h>

class MyApp : public wxApp {
public:
    virtual bool OnInit() {
        wxFrame *frame = new wxFrame(NULL, wxID_ANY, "Hello World");
        frame->Show(true);
        return true;
    }
};
wxIMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp);

Summary

sol2 is a specialized library for Lua C++ binding, offering easy integration and fast compilation. wxWidgets, on the other hand, is a comprehensive GUI toolkit with cross-platform support. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of your project: Lua scripting integration or GUI development.