4 ms·
I do agree, but only if we emphasize the cross-platform requirement and a single monolithic code base. I’d much rather write a lightweight desktop app in any o
by joshklein 9y ago
I do agree, but only if we emphasize the cross-platform requirement and a single monolithic code base.
I’d much rather write a lightweight desktop app in any of the native toolkits, but especially Cocoa/Swift, and do the heavy lifting parts outside of the GUI application. But you’ll still have to write a native Linux one, and QT is my front runner there. But I do recommend looking at the Xamarin stuff too. Depends on your needs and where you’re coming from as a dev.
- shmerl 9y agoWriting many native UIs can be a waste of time, especially if you need to maintain and update them.
- colejohnson66 9y agoIsn’t that what wxWidgets is for?
- joshklein 9y agoYes, but writing a cross platform UI for a single platform use case is a waste of time as well.
- shmerl 9y agoIt can make porting later to other platform easier. Using a lock-in on the other hand taxes any such future effort.
- joshklein 9y agoThat’s why your use case matters. If we are going down this path of thinking with no context, your application should not be a GUI application at all. But if you want easier future porting to iOS, that’s different than if you want easier future porting to xbox, and different again if you want it to run on ChromeOS. QT is awesome, don’t hear me wrong. But if your target platform is distros running gnome, it might not even be the right choice for a native Linux desktop app. And again, none of this cross-platform compatibility discussion necessarily makes it a better choice than Xamarin stuff. I’m just saying, it’s not “the” option. It’s just a very good choice.
- gmueckl 9y agoWhen you're stuck with C++, writing a GUI in anything but Qt on Windows or Linux is basically a waste of time. MFC on Windows sucks hard and Qt is simple the native go-to C++ toolkit for Linux.