4 ms·

> Because it does effect me. [..] VS Code? Definitely not my first choice, but its rust support is still better than IntelliJ So choose an Electron supported O

> Because it does effect me. [..] VS Code? Definitely not my first choice, but its rust support is still better than IntelliJ So choose an Electron supported OS or add OpenBSD support to Electron somehow. If VS Code is important enough to you, then that's a trade-off you have to make. I don't think I'd agree that Electron is "hacky". I'd certainly say it has shortcomings, but what technology doesn't? Rust certainly does, but you tolerate it because you (presumably) enjoy/use the language for things you care about. At the end of the day, most users aren't going to give a shit about what technology a thing is built with as long as it works moderately well. Solo developers being able to provide an application to 3 desktop platforms (one of which is historically underserved) with a single codebase is a powerful thing. The same argument applies to cross platform mobile technologies. Flutter, as an example, doesn't support WebOS, but it supports the vast majority of users, so it's gaining traction. Yeah, there are some tradeoffs, but I challenge you to find a technology where no such trade-off exists. Since you mentioned Qt: Qt's main audience is C++ developers. I have no interest in writing C++. There are Qt bindings for other languages, but good luck finding one that's as well supported as Qt's C++ ecosystem. There are a couple of commercially supported Python options, but then you have packaging woes. Plus, you have to worry about licensing. Or I could use Electron, reuse a lot of the code that I've already written for my web app, sprinkle in some desktop integration, and I'm off to the races. As an aside, the Rust language server (and most other language servers) works pretty well with Neovim. You can probably get at least the same experience with some work on your part. I assume the same can be said of Emacs, but I don't have the dexterity or number of fingers necessary to use it, so I don't know for sure.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
So choose an Electron supported OS Why? My whole point is that Electron is encouraging developers to not support other platforms. That's not helped by simply using something that the Electron devs have blessed. The absolute last thing I want is Electron to dictate which platforms I can and cannot use. or add OpenBSD support to Electron somehow. This too seems like a fools errand as the Electron devs have decided that anything beyond Windows, MacOS, and Linux will not ever have official support. Since you mentioned Qt: Qt's main audience is C++ developers. I have no interest in writing C++. Then don't. I'm currently working on a project that's using a rust backend and a Qt/QML front end. If you're more comfortable with JS then QML is an easy leap. The caveat being that you've got to drop down to C++ for some things. The biggest example I've seen is table data sources, but even that is due for vastly improved QML support in the next version of Qt. Or I could use Electron, reuse a lot of the code that I've already written for my web app, sprinkle in some desktop integration, and I'm off to the races. Right, and now we're back to "this sounds good to the devs" while the users suffer. In the mobile sphere where this has been common for a longer time, reskinned web sites work extraordinarily poorly. For example: Apple adding native app support to iOS, Facebook dropping their HTML5 based apps, and nearly any other app that's a lightly skinned site (BBC and NPR come to mind). It's not any better on the desktop side as evidenced by the poor accessibility and resource usage of Electron apps. Low effort cross platform toolkits have never yielded particularly good results. And while I think Qt is still pretty damn clunky on OSX, the solution isn't to run towards a product that exacerbates the problems. As an aside, the Rust language server (and most other language servers) works pretty well with Neovim. You can probably get at least the same experience with some work on your part. I assume the same can be said of Emacs, but I don't have the dexterity or number of fingers necessary to use it, so I don't know for sure. Yeah, I've flirted with Emacs for a few decades now but never warmed up to it (and it really is the epitome of a non-native app). Vi (typically vim) I use for some things (even with rust dev), but I'm not about to replace a full blown IDE with it.
- cweagans 7y ago
  > Why? My whole point is that Electron is encouraging developers to not support other platforms. Because you expressed a need for vscode. If you need it, figure out how to use it. If you don't need it, it's not a problem, right? > This too seems like a fools errand as the Electron devs have decided that anything beyond Windows, MacOS, and Linux will not ever have official support. "official support" are the key words there. If you care about it that much, whip up some patches and maintain them. Or even better, find other OpenBSD users to help you build and maintain them. Just because the electron devs don't want to support it doesn't mean it can't happen. > Then don't. I'm currently working on a project that's using a rust backend and a Qt/QML front end. If you're more comfortable with JS then QML is an easy leap. The caveat being that you've got to drop down to C++ for some things. JS but C++ for some things is just as bad as C++ for everything. Qt isn't an option for me any more than Electron is an option for you. > Right, and now we're back to "this sounds good to the devs" while the users suffer. Users don't actually suffer that much. You appear to be looking at this through the lens of your own environment -- you might suffer because of Electron, but people don't give two shits what slack is built with as long as it works reliably. > Low effort cross platform toolkits have never yielded particularly good results. If your web app is good to begin with, bundling it in Electron doesn't make it worse. You seem to be okay with browser based apps, so I'm not understanding where that disconnect is. > Vi (typically vim) I use for some things (even with rust dev), but I'm not about to replace a full blown IDE with it. Whatever works. vim was my daily driver for a long time. Works just fine as an IDE. Neovim is better. YMMV.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    If you care about it that much, whip up some patches and maintain them. Maintain patches that will never be accepted upstream? Thanks, but no thanks. And then what about proprietary apps? Electron is a scourge that's helping perpetuate mediocre user experience and an oligarchy. Beyond that the Electron build system is a rats' nest. If there were some killer app out there that used Electron I'd probably consider it more seriously. But Electron is a bit like systemd: an exceedingly poor solution but just good enough so that most end users don't complain too loudly. JS but C++ for some things is just as bad as C++ for everything. Qt isn't an option for me any more than Electron is an option for you. No, it really isn't. Using JS (ick) for the majority of your app insulates you from most of the big scary C++ bits. There are other options besides Qt and Electron. Using Qt (or pretty much anything else) would also do the opposite of trying to entrench an oligarchy. Users don't actually suffer that much. As much as that sounds like a ringing endorsement of Electron, I'd say the steady stream of complaints about apps like Slack are evidence to the contrary. If your web app is good to begin with, bundling it in Electron doesn't make it worse. You seem to be okay with browser based apps, so I'm not understanding where that disconnect is. What's acceptable in a browser is not in a desktop app. This is the same reason there's anxiety over Apple's push to bring over the iOS toolkit to desktop macs: context is everything. Expectations are higher for native apps and simply slapping an Electron install on a web app doesn't comes closer to "why even bother with a desktop app" than "hey, desktop apps are a much better experience". Beyond that a browser can share code that electron apps can't. I don't need or want N installations of Chrome/Chromium (with the resulting overhead and security implications).
DonHopkins 7y ago
>I assume the same can be said of Emacs, but I don't have the dexterity or number of fingers necessary to use it, so I don't know for sure. The UniPress Emacs icon used to be a unicorn, because once you hold down all the modifier keys with your finger, you need a horn on your head to press the letter with.
pjmlp 7y ago
Qt themselves offer Python support.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

So choose an Electron supported OS Why? My whole point is that Electron is encouraging developers to not support other platforms. That's not helped by simply using something that the Electron devs have blessed. The absolute last thing I want is Electron to dictate which platforms I can and cannot use. or add OpenBSD support to Electron somehow. This too seems like a fools errand as the Electron devs have decided that anything beyond Windows, MacOS, and Linux will not ever have official support. Since you mentioned Qt: Qt's main audience is C++ developers. I have no interest in writing C++. Then don't. I'm currently working on a project that's using a rust backend and a Qt/QML front end. If you're more comfortable with JS then QML is an easy leap. The caveat being that you've got to drop down to C++ for some things. The biggest example I've seen is table data sources, but even that is due for vastly improved QML support in the next version of Qt. Or I could use Electron, reuse a lot of the code that I've already written for my web app, sprinkle in some desktop integration, and I'm off to the races. Right, and now we're back to "this sounds good to the devs" while the users suffer. In the mobile sphere where this has been common for a longer time, reskinned web sites work extraordinarily poorly. For example: Apple adding native app support to iOS, Facebook dropping their HTML5 based apps, and nearly any other app that's a lightly skinned site (BBC and NPR come to mind). It's not any better on the desktop side as evidenced by the poor accessibility and resource usage of Electron apps. Low effort cross platform toolkits have never yielded particularly good results. And while I think Qt is still pretty damn clunky on OSX, the solution isn't to run towards a product that exacerbates the problems. As an aside, the Rust language server (and most other language servers) works pretty well with Neovim. You can probably get at least the same experience with some work on your part. I assume the same can be said of Emacs, but I don't have the dexterity or number of fingers necessary to use it, so I don't know for sure. Yeah, I've flirted with Emacs for a few decades now but never warmed up to it (and it really is the epitome of a non-native app). Vi (typically vim) I use for some things (even with rust dev), but I'm not about to replace a full blown IDE with it.

cweagans 7y ago
> Why? My whole point is that Electron is encouraging developers to not support other platforms. Because you expressed a need for vscode. If you need it, figure out how to use it. If you don't need it, it's not a problem, right? > This too seems like a fools errand as the Electron devs have decided that anything beyond Windows, MacOS, and Linux will not ever have official support. "official support" are the key words there. If you care about it that much, whip up some patches and maintain them. Or even better, find other OpenBSD users to help you build and maintain them. Just because the electron devs don't want to support it doesn't mean it can't happen. > Then don't. I'm currently working on a project that's using a rust backend and a Qt/QML front end. If you're more comfortable with JS then QML is an easy leap. The caveat being that you've got to drop down to C++ for some things. JS but C++ for some things is just as bad as C++ for everything. Qt isn't an option for me any more than Electron is an option for you. > Right, and now we're back to "this sounds good to the devs" while the users suffer. Users don't actually suffer that much. You appear to be looking at this through the lens of your own environment -- you might suffer because of Electron, but people don't give two shits what slack is built with as long as it works reliably. > Low effort cross platform toolkits have never yielded particularly good results. If your web app is good to begin with, bundling it in Electron doesn't make it worse. You seem to be okay with browser based apps, so I'm not understanding where that disconnect is. > Vi (typically vim) I use for some things (even with rust dev), but I'm not about to replace a full blown IDE with it. Whatever works. vim was my daily driver for a long time. Works just fine as an IDE. Neovim is better. YMMV.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  If you care about it that much, whip up some patches and maintain them. Maintain patches that will never be accepted upstream? Thanks, but no thanks. And then what about proprietary apps? Electron is a scourge that's helping perpetuate mediocre user experience and an oligarchy. Beyond that the Electron build system is a rats' nest. If there were some killer app out there that used Electron I'd probably consider it more seriously. But Electron is a bit like systemd: an exceedingly poor solution but just good enough so that most end users don't complain too loudly. JS but C++ for some things is just as bad as C++ for everything. Qt isn't an option for me any more than Electron is an option for you. No, it really isn't. Using JS (ick) for the majority of your app insulates you from most of the big scary C++ bits. There are other options besides Qt and Electron. Using Qt (or pretty much anything else) would also do the opposite of trying to entrench an oligarchy. Users don't actually suffer that much. As much as that sounds like a ringing endorsement of Electron, I'd say the steady stream of complaints about apps like Slack are evidence to the contrary. If your web app is good to begin with, bundling it in Electron doesn't make it worse. You seem to be okay with browser based apps, so I'm not understanding where that disconnect is. What's acceptable in a browser is not in a desktop app. This is the same reason there's anxiety over Apple's push to bring over the iOS toolkit to desktop macs: context is everything. Expectations are higher for native apps and simply slapping an Electron install on a web app doesn't comes closer to "why even bother with a desktop app" than "hey, desktop apps are a much better experience". Beyond that a browser can share code that electron apps can't. I don't need or want N installations of Chrome/Chromium (with the resulting overhead and security implications).

DonHopkins 7y ago

>I assume the same can be said of Emacs, but I don't have the dexterity or number of fingers necessary to use it, so I don't know for sure. The UniPress Emacs icon used to be a unicorn, because once you hold down all the modifier keys with your finger, you need a horn on your head to press the letter with.

pjmlp 7y ago

Qt themselves offer Python support.