3 ms·
> Writing a UI multiple times is monumentally expensive. I'm confused by this statement. The point of Qt is that you write the UI once. Your controller back
by dingaling 9y ago
> Writing a UI multiple times is monumentally expensive.
I'm confused by this statement. The point of Qt is that you write the UI once. Your controller back-end might have platform-related pragmas, but not the UI.
> If Slack with its billion dollars doesn't do it what does that say?
When you give programmers freedom to choose what makes life easy for them, end-user experience suffers?
I really think all dev companies should have a lab of 'consumer-grade' laptops with 4GB of RAM and 20Mbit/sec networking. And QC shouldn't let anything ship until it runs adequately on those. Particularly for a company like Slack that is targetting corporate users, the bulk of whom aren't software architects with 2017 MBPs ( who make the choice ) but small-cogs with a five-year-old Dell.
- api 9y agoYou're right about my first statement. Was a bit of a thinko in that it's talking more about the conditions that lead people to choose Electron in general than responding to Qt specifically. As others have pointed out in this thread: Qt is not really that much lighter than the web. It draws its own controls and even has css-like styling. I remember Qt apps being relatively slow on small machines... maybe not quite as slow as Electron but the latter could be tuned and improved and made competitive IMHO. Your main point is valid, but you shouldn't be focusing your anger at Electron or at programmers for choosing it. You should be focusing your anger at desktop vendors for refusing to offer a better way to develop cross-platform apps in favor of an ultimately foot-blasting quest for platform lock-in. By refusing to play with each other desktop vendors have doomed all their platforms to obsolescence and abandonment.