38 ms·

Have you built a desktop application on Linux? What are these dozens of toolkits you are talking about? Just use Qt.. or GTK. They work and aren't difficult to

Have you built a desktop application on Linux? What are these dozens of toolkits you are talking about? Just use Qt.. or GTK. They work and aren't difficult to use. Qt stuff works nicely on windows as well.

stelonix 9y ago
Yes, I have. Here's some to name a few: GTK, Qt, wx, Fox, fltk... Yes, I agree, Qt just works. My initial point was and still is about interoperability. They don't all speak well with each other and there are many good, useful applications in toolkits other than Qt or GTK.
- seba_dos1 9y ago
  That's hardly a point, since even some of those toolkits you mentioned are also available on Windows and macOS. We're talking about proper toolkits vs. Electron here. Good luck making Electron look native, yet alone "talk" with anything :P
- skeletal88 9y ago
  What do you even mean by "they don't all speak with each other", what are they, and what can't they do (that electron can do?). With Qt I can use the clipboard, sockets, and so on, set an icon for the application. Linux applications have standards to follow, as long as they do they look the same to the desktop environment. Are electron apps magically able to speak with other electron apps, in a simpler way (to implement) than Qt applications? I don't think so.
PopsiclePete 9y ago
Sure I can use Qt. And deal with C++ and the MOC. Well, by C++ I mean whatever dialect of it Qt chose to support to be backwards compatible with apps from 1995, certainly not C++14 or even C++11 last time I looked and oh yeah - have to use their smart pointers and string/container classes, and learn yet another build system, Qmake was it? And use their “interface builder” and cheap looking Visual Studio knock-off? Orrrrrrrr - JavaScript/Typescript with the amazing Chrome debugger and get my work done in half the time? You’re really really not selling Qt at all, least of all to people who might have NodeJS (lots of those) experience and want to get something done quickly. Yes I’m also aware of Qt’s 200 language bindings and funnily enough, a lot of shitty, slow, crash Qt apps on my Ubuntu desktop are Python with the PyQT bindings. Because even those guys want to get their job done quick. So, basically - Electron seems like a really nice default choice.
- jacobush 9y ago
  I hate Javascript and web tech and he didn't sell Qt to me either.
- lmm 9y ago
  > Yes I’m also aware of Qt’s 200 language bindings and funnily enough, a lot of shitty, slow, crash Qt apps on my Ubuntu desktop are Python with the PyQT bindings. So much like Electron then? Use Qt, use Python, and get on with your life. Or use Electron if you prefer, that's fine too. But don't make out like it's the only reasonable option and everything else is too confusing. If you ask 10 developers the right way to do a simple GUI application on Linux, 9 of them will tell you: do it with Qt and Python.
- tjoff 9y ago
  Moc integrates beautifully with cmake and "all" other build tools. There is no need for the interface builder (though I hear people seem to like it, barely tried it myself). No need to use their smart pointers either, I certainly never have. Never saw any reason to since C++11. No issue at all mixing with C++11+.

stelonix 9y ago

Yes, I have. Here's some to name a few: GTK, Qt, wx, Fox, fltk... Yes, I agree, Qt just works. My initial point was and still is about interoperability. They don't all speak well with each other and there are many good, useful applications in toolkits other than Qt or GTK.

seba_dos1 9y ago
That's hardly a point, since even some of those toolkits you mentioned are also available on Windows and macOS. We're talking about proper toolkits vs. Electron here. Good luck making Electron look native, yet alone "talk" with anything :P
skeletal88 9y ago
What do you even mean by "they don't all speak with each other", what are they, and what can't they do (that electron can do?). With Qt I can use the clipboard, sockets, and so on, set an icon for the application. Linux applications have standards to follow, as long as they do they look the same to the desktop environment. Are electron apps magically able to speak with other electron apps, in a simpler way (to implement) than Qt applications? I don't think so.

PopsiclePete 9y ago

Sure I can use Qt. And deal with C++ and the MOC. Well, by C++ I mean whatever dialect of it Qt chose to support to be backwards compatible with apps from 1995, certainly not C++14 or even C++11 last time I looked and oh yeah - have to use their smart pointers and string/container classes, and learn yet another build system, Qmake was it? And use their “interface builder” and cheap looking Visual Studio knock-off? Orrrrrrrr - JavaScript/Typescript with the amazing Chrome debugger and get my work done in half the time? You’re really really not selling Qt at all, least of all to people who might have NodeJS (lots of those) experience and want to get something done quickly. Yes I’m also aware of Qt’s 200 language bindings and funnily enough, a lot of shitty, slow, crash Qt apps on my Ubuntu desktop are Python with the PyQT bindings. Because even those guys want to get their job done quick. So, basically - Electron seems like a really nice default choice.

jacobush 9y ago
I hate Javascript and web tech and he didn't sell Qt to me either.
lmm 9y ago
> Yes I’m also aware of Qt’s 200 language bindings and funnily enough, a lot of shitty, slow, crash Qt apps on my Ubuntu desktop are Python with the PyQT bindings. So much like Electron then? Use Qt, use Python, and get on with your life. Or use Electron if you prefer, that's fine too. But don't make out like it's the only reasonable option and everything else is too confusing. If you ask 10 developers the right way to do a simple GUI application on Linux, 9 of them will tell you: do it with Qt and Python.
tjoff 9y ago
Moc integrates beautifully with cmake and "all" other build tools. There is no need for the interface builder (though I hear people seem to like it, barely tried it myself). No need to use their smart pointers either, I certainly never have. Never saw any reason to since C++11. No issue at all mixing with C++11+.