5 ms·
What I don't understand is: If Electron apps can be compiled to be cross-platform out of the box, why use an Electron binding for .NET that makes it inherently
by andrew_ 9y ago
What I don't understand is: If Electron apps can be compiled to be cross-platform out of the box, why use an Electron binding for .NET that makes it inherently locked into Windows (without jumping through fancy hoops for other platforms)? I wrote a lot of Windows-only freeware on .NET over the years, and there's just no reason for it that I can see, if the core component of an app is cross-platform by default.
- m_fayer 9y agoCross-platform capability is not the only possible motivation to use something like this. Personally, it interests me because I don't see WinForms/WPF/UWP as viable, so right now the web stack is the only capable high-level UI toolkit on Windows. On MacOS, you can still get by with native. For an app I'm working on, I'm exploring the possibility of a shared core in C#, with the UI layer rendered with the web stack on Windows, and with Xamarin.Mac (native binding for .NET) on MacOS.
- yodon 9y ago> Why use an Electron binding for .NET that makes it inherently locked to Windows You’re a couple years behind on cross platform support in dot net and completely missing the cross platform support in Electron/Electron.NET. Zero hoops to jump. Electron.NET apps just work, out of the the box, on macOS and Linux, in addition to on Windows. Today.
- mikewhy 9y agoI don't think this is cross-platform: Cross Platform? (Closed): https://github.com/NeutroniumCore/Neutronium/issues/14 https://github.com/NeutroniumCore/Neutronium/issues/14 And it looks like all the examples reference .net 4.5, which isn't .net core: https://github.com/NeutroniumCore/Neutronium/search?p=1&q=NETFramework&type=&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/NeutroniumCore/Neutronium/search?p=1&q=NE...
- nightski 9y agoThat's not Electron.NET which is what the parent was referring to.