3 ms·

In many cases there are no practical alternatives for slick UI/UX.

mondoshawan 7y ago
Bunk. This is entirely subjective and worthless to the argument. Compare: widget toolkits like Aqua, GTK3, Windows.Forms, etc. to the bedlam that is the web.
- zaro 7y ago
  So let'say you use any of the toolkits you mention. How would you go about distributing your app to Windows, macos, android and ios? I am even leaving out the question that from all the toolkits mentioned none will let you do that.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    How does Chrome get delivered to all these platforms? It's not exactly rocket science.
    - zaro 7y ago
      well, it's already there when you buy/reinstall the device. Maybe not chrome but a web browser is preinstalled. So then you only need to provide url to the users of your app, and they are ready to use it. With distributing binaries it is much more complex story. And that's why projects using Electron get more and more popular, because they at least take part of this complexity away.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        > And that's why projects using Electron get more and more popular, because they at least take part of this complexity away. ...no they don't. They're literally distributed the exact same was as native applications. They're developed differently, saving the developer time (theoretically), but they're distributed in the same old download-and-install (or just download and run) way that applications have been since forever.
        zaro 7y ago
        I said "they at least take part of this complexity away." They don't solve all of the problems, but they do solve two important ones. 1. The runtime is the same on all platform 2. They build installable binary packages for you So only 2 is about distribution , and it is not a trivial task. If you have to make Installer for windows, DMG for macos and let's say deb and rpm for Linux. I have a small opensource tool that I make, and I would say that building the installer for all the platforms have taken probably 20% of all the development time, and if you count in also the desktop integration code( like Explorer context menu for Windows) it's way more.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Installers for MacOS and Windows are piss easy. Hell, you don't even actually need installers for either, as both OSs support portable applications. I never even bother to make windows installers because you can just unzip to a folder and be done. If I ever distributed anything for Linux, I'd use AppImage to the same effect.

Bunk. This is entirely subjective and worthless to the argument. Compare: widget toolkits like Aqua, GTK3, Windows.Forms, etc. to the bedlam that is the web.

zaro 7y ago
So let'say you use any of the toolkits you mention. How would you go about distributing your app to Windows, macos, android and ios? I am even leaving out the question that from all the toolkits mentioned none will let you do that.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  How does Chrome get delivered to all these platforms? It's not exactly rocket science.
  - zaro 7y ago
    well, it's already there when you buy/reinstall the device. Maybe not chrome but a web browser is preinstalled. So then you only need to provide url to the users of your app, and they are ready to use it. With distributing binaries it is much more complex story. And that's why projects using Electron get more and more popular, because they at least take part of this complexity away.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > And that's why projects using Electron get more and more popular, because they at least take part of this complexity away. ...no they don't. They're literally distributed the exact same was as native applications. They're developed differently, saving the developer time (theoretically), but they're distributed in the same old download-and-install (or just download and run) way that applications have been since forever.
      - zaro 7y ago
        I said "they at least take part of this complexity away." They don't solve all of the problems, but they do solve two important ones. 1. The runtime is the same on all platform 2. They build installable binary packages for you So only 2 is about distribution , and it is not a trivial task. If you have to make Installer for windows, DMG for macos and let's say deb and rpm for Linux. I have a small opensource tool that I make, and I would say that building the installer for all the platforms have taken probably 20% of all the development time, and if you count in also the desktop integration code( like Explorer context menu for Windows) it's way more.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Installers for MacOS and Windows are piss easy. Hell, you don't even actually need installers for either, as both OSs support portable applications. I never even bother to make windows installers because you can just unzip to a folder and be done. If I ever distributed anything for Linux, I'd use AppImage to the same effect.