4 ms·

All your positives about Qt can be applied to electron but even better. From a business point of view electron is a winner. For example at our company we have b

by qudat 9y ago

All your positives about Qt can be applied to electron but even better. From a business point of view electron is a winner. For example at our company we have built a desktop app, web app, salesforce plugin, chrome extension, outlook plugin, cli app, and are working on mobile apps all using one JavaScript codebase. It’s a business and developers dream. There really is no competition and any claim to the contrary would need to offer more than a cross platform desktop app.

DandyDev 9y ago
It's not a developers dream if that developer loathes Javascript, like I do. Even Typescript just feels like lipstick on a pig.
- tcd 9y ago
  Sure, you can hate a programming language. It changes absolutely nothing, except your potential revenue streams. It's like saying "I loathe Linux!!" and knowing nothing about it; sure, but in this industry, you're going to have a tough time :)
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    To be fair, JavaScript hardly deserves being compared to Linux. People don't loathe JavaScript for no reason. The language itself is pretty rough around the edges.
    - zghst 9y ago
      Not just the edges!
- NMDaniel 9y ago
  And many developers loathe C++. Why should I have to use such a low level and antiquated language for developing a GUI? Nowadays you don't even have to use JS/TS, there are many languages that target JS and have decent bindings to its ecosystem, such as Scala, Purescript, Clojure. This doesn't seem to be the case with Qt which lacks decent bindings to languages other than Python.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper C++, or just using a C++ compiler to compile code that looks like C.
    - mikewhy 9y ago
      "It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper JavaScript, or just using TypeScript to compile code that looks like JavaScript."
    - Tehnix 9y ago
      > It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper C++, or just using a C++ compiler to compile code that looks like C. You might wanna read that back to yourself. Now replace it with any language you hate, and then tell me how that statement makes any form of argument at all (it doesn't...).
- petre 9y ago
  I not a fan of javascript either, although I write js almost evey day and use Atom mainly because I could not find a better open source desktop editor that looks and works like Sublime Text. If anyone cares to write one in C++, D, Rust or Go, I'll happily use it.
- Rapzid 9y ago
  There are many viable compile-to-js languages out there to pick from: * clojurescript * f# via fable * c# via different means(even an MSIL compiler) * Golang * etc I mean, clojurescript and F# are bomber if you want functional. Typescript may give the best interop with existing packages, but I've read good things about F#'s .d.ts file support for creating type providers. In any case, if the lang you pick creates a bit of extra work that's probably small beans compared to the work required to get all of what parent described with completely separate languages and platforms.
  - xfer 9y ago
    Adding Reason(which is Ocaml with bucklescript backend) and Purescript to the list.
    - codefined 9y ago
      Adding this[0] list of languages that compile to JavaScript to the list. There seem so many that no matter your taste in syntactical sugar there should be something for you. [0] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-languages-that-compile-to-js https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-langu...
      - xfer 9y ago
        Would like to clarify that it's not about "syntactical sugar" more like different semantics and/or safety(they treat js as machine code), hardly anyone would claim they are using these languages because of js syntax.
  - zghst 9y ago
    f# is the future
    - bonesss 9y ago
      As clearly evidenced by how hard MS has been working to bring C# up to par these last few years :) Naturally there are limits to how well you can retrofit something into a language compared to having that feature there from the start...
Cyberdog 9y ago
> For example at our company we have built a desktop app Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
blub 9y ago
Electron is not really fast, nor does it generate great GUIs. It's much younger than Qt, only four years old. It's not frequently updated, it uses an insecure version of the Chromium browser. So... not all positives can be applied. In fact none can be applied except ease of use and it's about the same, until the app grows and one realizes that the typical JS architecture is as easy to structure as a pile of mush. Electron supporters are really taking the piss in this thread. Slapping together a bunch of statements which can be easily disproved doesn't qualify as an argument.
- qudat 9y ago
  I absolutely disagree with all of your statements and think they are equally unjustified. You have your unshakable opinions and I’ll leave you alone with them.

by qudat 9y ago

DandyDev 9y ago

It's not a developers dream if that developer loathes Javascript, like I do. Even Typescript just feels like lipstick on a pig.

tcd 9y ago
Sure, you can hate a programming language. It changes absolutely nothing, except your potential revenue streams. It's like saying "I loathe Linux!!" and knowing nothing about it; sure, but in this industry, you're going to have a tough time :)
- rootlocus 9y ago
  To be fair, JavaScript hardly deserves being compared to Linux. People don't loathe JavaScript for no reason. The language itself is pretty rough around the edges.
  - zghst 9y ago
    Not just the edges!
NMDaniel 9y ago
And many developers loathe C++. Why should I have to use such a low level and antiquated language for developing a GUI? Nowadays you don't even have to use JS/TS, there are many languages that target JS and have decent bindings to its ecosystem, such as Scala, Purescript, Clojure. This doesn't seem to be the case with Qt which lacks decent bindings to languages other than Python.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper C++, or just using a C++ compiler to compile code that looks like C.
  - mikewhy 9y ago
    "It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper JavaScript, or just using TypeScript to compile code that looks like JavaScript."
  - Tehnix 9y ago
    > It is all a matter of actually knowing how to write proper C++, or just using a C++ compiler to compile code that looks like C. You might wanna read that back to yourself. Now replace it with any language you hate, and then tell me how that statement makes any form of argument at all (it doesn't...).
petre 9y ago
I not a fan of javascript either, although I write js almost evey day and use Atom mainly because I could not find a better open source desktop editor that looks and works like Sublime Text. If anyone cares to write one in C++, D, Rust or Go, I'll happily use it.
Rapzid 9y ago
There are many viable compile-to-js languages out there to pick from: * clojurescript * f# via fable * c# via different means(even an MSIL compiler) * Golang * etc I mean, clojurescript and F# are bomber if you want functional. Typescript may give the best interop with existing packages, but I've read good things about F#'s .d.ts file support for creating type providers. In any case, if the lang you pick creates a bit of extra work that's probably small beans compared to the work required to get all of what parent described with completely separate languages and platforms.
- xfer 9y ago
  Adding Reason(which is Ocaml with bucklescript backend) and Purescript to the list.
  - codefined 9y ago
    Adding this[0] list of languages that compile to JavaScript to the list. There seem so many that no matter your taste in syntactical sugar there should be something for you. [0] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-languages-that-compile-to-js https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/list-of-langu...
    - xfer 9y ago
      Would like to clarify that it's not about "syntactical sugar" more like different semantics and/or safety(they treat js as machine code), hardly anyone would claim they are using these languages because of js syntax.
- zghst 9y ago
  f# is the future
  - bonesss 9y ago
    As clearly evidenced by how hard MS has been working to bring C# up to par these last few years :) Naturally there are limits to how well you can retrofit something into a language compared to having that feature there from the start...

Cyberdog 9y ago

> For example at our company we have built a desktop app Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

blub 9y ago

Electron is not really fast, nor does it generate great GUIs. It's much younger than Qt, only four years old. It's not frequently updated, it uses an insecure version of the Chromium browser. So... not all positives can be applied. In fact none can be applied except ease of use and it's about the same, until the app grows and one realizes that the typical JS architecture is as easy to structure as a pile of mush. Electron supporters are really taking the piss in this thread. Slapping together a bunch of statements which can be easily disproved doesn't qualify as an argument.

qudat 9y ago
I absolutely disagree with all of your statements and think they are equally unjustified. You have your unshakable opinions and I’ll leave you alone with them.