3 ms·
TBH as a user i do not see a reason for these two to be running inside a web browser. They'd be faster, more light on system resources, more capable and less lo
by badsectoracula 8y ago
TBH as a user i do not see a reason for these two to be running inside a web browser. They'd be faster, more light on system resources, more capable and less locked to their developers' whims as standalone desktop applications (Electron monstrosities excluded).
- nine_k 8y agoWeb: write once, run everywhere, the user is guaranteed to have the runtime installed. This is damn hard to beat, even with other reasonably written multiplatform toolkits like Java FX or Qt. Also, a web page is its own environment, not intended to blend in. With "native" apps, there's always a bunch of "...but not native enough" complaints. (My idea is that some apps should explicitly aim to look alien and their own, without making attempts to fit in, like e.g. Photoshop or Blender do.) With Java FX, you have to have the user install a recent JRE. With Java 9, though, I suppose you can make one fat binary with only the relevant parts of JRE and you code strung together, and the rest removed. (This has security implications, though.) Qt means C++ which is a pain for many reasons, or e.g. Python which is a pain to distribute, though this can be alleviated (pack everything into a single fat binary). You still have to have a build per platform. I just suppose that Web tech expertise is easier to come by, and a Web product faster to produce, at least initially. This trumps great many reasons from the business perspective.