7 ms·

So it's a local email client. Basically, what we already have but written in a less efficient language...

by oneplane 9y ago

throwaway91111 9y ago
Yea, but this enables things like e2e encryption without losing a search index.
- blibble 9y ago
  if it's a chrome extension there's nothing stopping a court forcing Google to add a modification for a certain user no different to having your javascript decryption routines done by a website
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Sure, but presumably if you're worried about it you can sideload your own version. Nonetheless you're absolutely correct; i would prefer firefox to chrome.
  - j45 9y ago
    I have found Chromium to be a nice alternative to keep local browser apps working as it freezes the browser version instead of automatic upgrades, which have regularly broken web based line of business applications I have been around the past few years.
freshhawk 9y ago
A less efficient language with a much better UI toolkit, seems a reasonable trade-off to make for a lot of people.
- nradov 9y ago
  Better how?
- mixedCase 9y ago
  > with a much better UI toolkit I just made this as a reply in another thread where the user essentially believed you couldn't have a nice GUI (his example was VS Code) with a native toolkit that's also easy to develop in: https://i.imgur.com/RPr6VMS.png https://i.imgur.com/RPr6VMS.png https://gitlab.com/mixedCase/poc-qml-vscode https://gitlab.com/mixedCase/poc-qml-vscode We've had the tools for a long time in desktop, let's not pretend we don't.
  - qq66 9y ago
    Microsoft has tremendous resources, it's definitely costlier to build a great desktop UI than a great Web UI (but the great Eat desktop UIs are always better).
    - danieldk 9y ago
      Microsoft has tremendous resources, it's definitely costlier to build a great desktop UI than a great Web UI What? Let's not rewrite history. I has been easy and cheap to create desktop UIs for decades, literally. I was using Borland Delphi 1.0 as a 13 year old and could have a basic Windows UI app up and running in ten minutes. There have been many great cross-platform and platform-specific toolkits that are easy to use. E.g. you can teach someone with some Python knowledge how to make basic Qt desktop applications in one hour or so. It's literally as simple as dragging some widgets to a window and writing some lines of wrapper code. I recommend anyone who thinks that developing applications using web UIs is easier/cheaper to look at some Delphi 1.0 videos. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3K_0vjUhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3K_0vjUhk This was how we developed desktop applications 22 years ago on machines with 4 or 8 MB RAM. And it is still a whole lot easier and more efficient than a web app.
      - freshhawk 9y ago
        I agree, but the previous comment did say "a great desktop UI". Simple ones are definitely easier in something like QT of course, great ones are not.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I have been doing native GUI development starting with Turbo Vision in Turbo Pascal 6 and started with Web development in about 1997. I have used quite a few UI toolkits since those days and am yet to agree with the opinion that the Frankenstein mixture of HTML, CSS and JavaScript is a better UI toolkit.
- oneplane 9y ago
  A lot of people think the earth is flat and landing on the moon is fake. Call me a misanthropist, but I generally have little faith in 'a lot of people' ;-) The thing about efficient language wasn't 100% targeted at web technologies alone, but at the general waste of computing resources for something as trivial as a mail client. Just because we have SSDs, gigabytes of RAM and CPUs that do a whole lot of cycles doesn't mean wasting a good portion of it is a good idea.
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    I wasn't saying it was good because it was popular, not making an argument from popularity, since I also think most people are stupid. I was saying that's the right trade-off to choose in a lot of common use cases. Because most UI toolkits are pretty limiting, and the web toolkit can be amazingly powerful and productive. Of course, if you follow the latest fads in the awful js community they are a nightmare, but lets not pretend that's the only way to use the platform when it makes sense to pay the efficiency cost.
gaius 9y ago
So it's a local email client. Basically, what we already have but written in a less efficient language... Right. This is as if Outlook was written in VBA and ran inside Word.

So it's a local email client. Basically, what we already have but written in a less efficient language...

throwaway91111 9y ago

Yea, but this enables things like e2e encryption without losing a search index.

blibble 9y ago
if it's a chrome extension there's nothing stopping a court forcing Google to add a modification for a certain user no different to having your javascript decryption routines done by a website
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Sure, but presumably if you're worried about it you can sideload your own version. Nonetheless you're absolutely correct; i would prefer firefox to chrome.
- j45 9y ago
  I have found Chromium to be a nice alternative to keep local browser apps working as it freezes the browser version instead of automatic upgrades, which have regularly broken web based line of business applications I have been around the past few years.

freshhawk 9y ago

A less efficient language with a much better UI toolkit, seems a reasonable trade-off to make for a lot of people.

nradov 9y ago
Better how?
mixedCase 9y ago
> with a much better UI toolkit I just made this as a reply in another thread where the user essentially believed you couldn't have a nice GUI (his example was VS Code) with a native toolkit that's also easy to develop in: https://i.imgur.com/RPr6VMS.png https://i.imgur.com/RPr6VMS.png https://gitlab.com/mixedCase/poc-qml-vscode https://gitlab.com/mixedCase/poc-qml-vscode We've had the tools for a long time in desktop, let's not pretend we don't.
- qq66 9y ago
  Microsoft has tremendous resources, it's definitely costlier to build a great desktop UI than a great Web UI (but the great Eat desktop UIs are always better).
  - danieldk 9y ago
    Microsoft has tremendous resources, it's definitely costlier to build a great desktop UI than a great Web UI What? Let's not rewrite history. I has been easy and cheap to create desktop UIs for decades, literally. I was using Borland Delphi 1.0 as a 13 year old and could have a basic Windows UI app up and running in ten minutes. There have been many great cross-platform and platform-specific toolkits that are easy to use. E.g. you can teach someone with some Python knowledge how to make basic Qt desktop applications in one hour or so. It's literally as simple as dragging some widgets to a window and writing some lines of wrapper code. I recommend anyone who thinks that developing applications using web UIs is easier/cheaper to look at some Delphi 1.0 videos. E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3K_0vjUhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_3K_0vjUhk This was how we developed desktop applications 22 years ago on machines with 4 or 8 MB RAM. And it is still a whole lot easier and more efficient than a web app.
    - freshhawk 9y ago
      I agree, but the previous comment did say "a great desktop UI". Simple ones are definitely easier in something like QT of course, great ones are not.
pjmlp 9y ago
I have been doing native GUI development starting with Turbo Vision in Turbo Pascal 6 and started with Web development in about 1997. I have used quite a few UI toolkits since those days and am yet to agree with the opinion that the Frankenstein mixture of HTML, CSS and JavaScript is a better UI toolkit.
oneplane 9y ago
A lot of people think the earth is flat and landing on the moon is fake. Call me a misanthropist, but I generally have little faith in 'a lot of people' ;-) The thing about efficient language wasn't 100% targeted at web technologies alone, but at the general waste of computing resources for something as trivial as a mail client. Just because we have SSDs, gigabytes of RAM and CPUs that do a whole lot of cycles doesn't mean wasting a good portion of it is a good idea.
- freshhawk 9y ago
  I wasn't saying it was good because it was popular, not making an argument from popularity, since I also think most people are stupid. I was saying that's the right trade-off to choose in a lot of common use cases. Because most UI toolkits are pretty limiting, and the web toolkit can be amazingly powerful and productive. Of course, if you follow the latest fads in the awful js community they are a nightmare, but lets not pretend that's the only way to use the platform when it makes sense to pay the efficiency cost.

gaius 9y ago

So it's a local email client. Basically, what we already have but written in a less efficient language... Right. This is as if Outlook was written in VBA and ran inside Word.