4 ms·

If it doesn't support Windows then it shouldn't be called "Cross Platform", no?

• chc 16y ago
  No, the definition of "cross-platform" is not "supports Windows." It works on two different platforms, so it's cross-platform. Much like how Photoshop is a cross-platform application even though it doesn't support Linux.
  • bruceboughton 16y ago
    But given that Windows is still the dominant platform in the desktop space it would be disingenuous to claim this it's "cross-platform" if it's not coming to Windows soon.
    • kalid 16y ago
      Agreed. I was going to look into it, but not having windows support means you block 90% of your market. It's deceptive because saying "cross platform" to a developer (especially for a desktop app) means "runs on most devices". Using the term otherwise is a semantic game.
    • chc 16y ago
      It isn't disingenuous for them to use a word exactly as it is defined. If this were a framework that allowed normal Linux apps to run natively (i.e. not in X11) under OS X and they said it allowed "cross-platform compatibility between Linux and OS X," would you say that's disingenuous too? Calling it disingenuous seems disingenuous to me — just because it would be nice if it did Windows doesn't mean Windows support is a requirement to be cross-platform. At any rate, the Bowline site says Windows support is coming soon, so I don't see the problem at all.