Show HN: Shirei, cross-platform GUI framework in native Go(github.com)
64 pointsby hsn9154 hours ago13 comments
  • nickcw2 hours ago
    I had a look through the code to see how it manages not to use a pile of C libraries with cgo like other Go GUI libraries.

    The answer is platform dependent:

    Windows loads the relevant DLLs by hand and calls them. This is a well established technique in Go programs and due to the super stable DLL interface works well.

    Linux has an x11 and Wayland backends and these implement (through a library) the wire protocols directly in Go which is nice and will make cross compilation and distribution easy.

    macOS does appear to use cgo to access the cocoa libraries. macOS doesn't like statically linked Go programs anyway though as they don't use system name resolution so this isn't a bad compromise, but will mean macOS stuff needs to be built on macOS I think.

    I didn't see Android or iOS support.

    A nice innovative approach to GUI building. Since the lowest common denominator for the backends is an RGBA buffer, this will bypass all accessibility things the OS provides.

    The above gleaned after a few minutes reading the source so may not be 100% accurate.

    • pancsta2 minutes ago
      Theres is another new project which does NOT rely on CGO https://github.com/gogpu/ui Its basically the whole WebGPU implemented in Go. Theres also Gio, but not sure if its still active. CGO is a huge pain…
    • irq-1an hour ago
      > Mobile is under consideration (no decision yet). If it is supported, it will be limited to utility-style apps — not games or rich multi-touch experiences.

      https://judi.systems/shirei/

      No Multiple Windows so even desktop apps will be limited to "utility-style apps".

      I compiled and ran the process_monitor example on linux: it works, compiles fast and is about 10mb. Also cross-built for windows and it's 8.4mb. Can't build for macos/arm64

      (Under wine the windows exe doesn't render text. weird.)

      • irq-1an hour ago
        examples/process_monitor$ GOOS=darwin GOARCH=arm64 go build

            # go.hasen.dev/shirei/cocoabackend
    ../../../gopath/pkg/mod/go.hasen.dev/shirei@v0.5.0/cocoabackend/
    perf_darwin.go:198:11: undefined: softRenderer
    ../../../gopath/pkg/mod/go.hasen.dev/shirei@v0.5.0/cocoabackend/
    perf_darwin.go:208:22: undefined: softRenderer
  • TazeTSchnitzel3 hours ago
    I will admit that I don't like vibecoded things, but perhaps I must stomach that AI will be writing a lot in this brave new era.

    However, when the commit history has stuff like

      v0.5.0: native backends, software renderer, text input, IME
  Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
  Co-authored-by: Codex <codex@openai.com>
  Co-authored-by: Composer <composer@cursor.com>
  Co-authored-by: Cursor Grok 4.5 <noreply@cursor.com>
  
  377 files changed
  Lines changed: 62423 additions & 2871 deletions
    it's very hard. These “change the entire world” commits make for a history that is impractical to follow for a human, and therefore of little interest to me.
  • swiftcoder4 hours ago
    > Experience has shown us that an immediate mode API is the only sane way to program GUI applications

    I wonder how long till they pivot away from this belief. I feel like everyone in UI goes through this phase as some point, but in the end it doesn't scale to truly complicated UI

    • rootlocus19 minutes ago
      Is Tracy complicated enough? Because it's imgui.

      https://github.com/wolfpld/tracy

    • cosmic_cheese3 hours ago
      Yeah. Based on my personal experience I think some kind of hybrid of old-school imperative retained and declarative retained, both with granular reactivity is probably the correct balance for "serious" high-utility desktop applications. Declarative approaches are great for smaller components but become a nightmare for anything much more complex than a relatively simple mobile app while imperative requires a lot of extra legwork at the component level, and as I understand (which may be incorrect) immediate mode makes certain types of optimization more difficult.
    • lioeters2 hours ago
      In my experience, it's the opposite. Immediate mode GUI, or at least a functional and declarative approach, is the only way I've seen it scale well. It's more modular and scale-independent. On the other hand, retained mode, or imperative/OOP approach to state management, becomes complicated and monstrous quickly; it's the dominant style and can be made to work OK, but typically hellish to maintain or develop beyond a certain scale.

      Admittedly I'm simplifying too much and conflating paradigms. My preference is something like "functional core, imperative shell" or maybe "immediate-mode core, retained-mode shell" if that makes sense.

    • hsn9153 hours ago
      It's the only thing that can scale to complicated UI
      • gen2brain3 hours ago
        What does "scale"even mean in UI context? 10 or 100 controls in app makes difference how exactly? Retained apps redraw when needed, they are idle most of the times. How redrawing every frame helps to scale?
  • rootlocus22 minutes ago

        Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
    Co-authored-by: Codex <codex@openai.com>
    Co-authored-by: Composer <composer@cursor.com>
    Co-authored-by: Cursor Grok 4.5 <noreply@cursor.com>
    How do you get so many agents to co-author a single commit?
  • Reubend2 hours ago
    > What is it that matters for "immediate mode"? Is it that the UI renders everything every frame? No. It's that you build the UI by describing what it should look like everyframe, based only (or mostly) on the data. This is why React won...

    I don't think that's why React got so popular. React popularized unidirectional data flow, which is different than immediate mode rendering. This readme file seems to conflate the two of those.

    Now that I think of it, couldn't one argue that React itself is a retained mode UI, since it choses which components to re-render and which not to?

  • tptacek2 hours ago
    This looks better than the other native Go GUI frameworks. Frameworks like these are a really good target for coding agents: the biggest impediment to building a new UI framework is the sheer amount of meticulous grunt work needed. So, sure, I'm on board with the idea of languages not normally a perfect fit for native UI work getting solid, generated frameworks.

    But: what's the real advantage at this point to having frameworks like these? I can get arbitrary SwiftUI interfaces built very quickly, with a lot of attention to macOS (for instance) idiom, and an automatically generated interface between the SwiftUI app and Go. That works pretty great. Why take the UX hit at all?

  • lietuvis2 hours ago
    Super vibe coded project still uses an LRU cache (github.com/dboslee/lru v0.0.1) as a dependency, this is exactly the things these llms were supposed to solve right, why the hell do people still add these 100 lines dependencies in their projects?
  • iafan3 hours ago
    I understand the core is the layout engine and a component library? Does the rendering somehow benefit from GPU?

    I recently had a good experience creating custom UI based on ebitengine — also a cross-platform Go engine. As it is a game engine, it has this built in game drawing loop, GPU-accelerated, with some cross-platform kb/mouse input handling. And this feels like a good platform to build the layout engine and components on top of. Have you ever considered this? Or how does your approach compare to that of ebitengine? Did you try (and do you position) your library to build custom UI for some underpowered computers such as Raspberry Pi?

  • roncesvalles3 hours ago
    Wails is another cross-platform GUI framework in Go: https://wails.io/
  • ahriad3 hours ago
    How it compares to Fyne?
  • shinzui2 hours ago
    What a waste of tokens.
    • 57016524002 hours ago
      true to that. looks like AI took shortcuts and avoided real work and real hard problems. might as well just flip a random bits for cpu hours.
  • 57016524003 hours ago
    cross-platform is overstatement.

    can I run it on Android? iOS?

    no? then 99.999999% of real world users cannot access it. and if it is desktop oly, what is the point? it is no better than web.

    • cosmic_cheese2 hours ago
      The needs of desktop and mobile are different enough that it's extremely difficult to build a UI framework for both that doesn't seriously compromise one paradigm or the other.

      I would argue it's one of the main reasons why frameworks like Flutter stuggle with widespread adoption on desktop — it was conceived primarily as mobile-oriented, and so on desktop you're stuck with half-baked third party components for essentials such as datagrids and tree views. WinUI with its mobile heritage in UWP suffers similar problems.

      GTK + Adwaita tries to straddle the fence and produces a subpar experience on both sides. Desktop data density is terrible due to mobile-minded button sizes and margins (big touch targets, bloated whitespace to make inadvertant touch interactions less frequent) and desktop-oriented widgets like tree views feel out of place on mobile.

      • 57016524002 hours ago
        so it is not cross-platform? or all available platforms are... desktop.

        serious vibes of shortcuts and avoiding real hard work that brings real value.

        • comex2 hours ago
          It is still meaningfully cross-platform to support all 3 major desktop platforms rather than just one.
    • DANmode2 hours ago
      Web is fantastic.
  • oooyay2 hours ago
    > Immediate mode API in the true sense: you never need to maintain UI widgets or sync your data with widget state.

    https://judi.systems/shirei/

    Known Issues & Limitations

    The following are known issues and limitations that we plan to tackle:

        Large text blocks will kill responsiveness! Use the LargeText widget.

    The widget catalog is aimed at developer tooling, not general consumer polish: no rich text, tree widget, or date picker yet.

    There is no robust theming system. Some widgets take an accent color; custom button styles mean implementing your own (the stock Button is a usable reference). Styling can still be verbose at times.
    Are these statements compatible?