5 ms·

In general, why would one take this approach of embedding a browser, compiling to WASM, etc. over a native UI? I'm genuinely curious why/when this is a better

by eivarv 6y ago

In general, why would one take this approach of embedding a browser, compiling to WASM, etc. over a native UI? I'm genuinely curious why/when this is a better solution.

krageon 6y ago
Building native UIs cross-platform is a huge PITA and frequently the frameworks are also very annoying to use. I don't condone the use of browsers for desktop software because it is a travesty, but it is very understandable when you look at how we got here.
- techntoke 6y ago
  Ad companies insistent on spying while funding JS development schools?
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  You watch .Net core is going to curb stomp all that kind of crap.
  - sime2009 6y ago
    Can you explain how for those of us who don't follow .Net very closely?
    - krageon 6y ago
      It doesn't, because .net core doesn't ship with cross-platform GUI toolkits. You have the usual options, which are all bad.
      - fassssst 6y ago
        https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-multi-platform-app-ui/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-multi-...
        longstation 6y ago
        Linux is not supported.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        yet
        krageon 6y ago
        From what I can tell of the repository, it's up to the "Community" to make a Linux version of this.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        There are three problems. One that even with the resources MS has at it's disposal it's taken them half a decade to make their framework cross platform. Second it makes sense for them to target the big three that represents 95% of the market. And Linux desktop isn't one of those. And third the Linux community is hostile. Back in 2010 they could have embraced Mono which was sorely needed but didn't out of just spite. Brings up a third point when talking about development. Microsoft is providing a posix compatible dev environment under Win10. The threat that poses is completely unappreciated.
        krageon 6y ago
        The open-source community doesn't like Microsoft because Microsoft is hostile to open-source. It's their MO to embrace things first and people with short memories laud them for it every time. It's very disingenuous to quote their hostility as one of the problems when really it's a logical historical development. They're going to have to put in a lot more effort to make amends for all the terrible things they've done over the years. But all of that is really beside the point. Saying the "community" needs to fix it means they won't put time or effort into doing it themselves, which by extension means the integration will most likely never be as good as what they have prioritised. This will relegate their "cross-platform" solution to the realm of all the other frameworks: Bad.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Judging by Microsofts previous half-baked, unfinished and abandoned UI frameworks I'm not holding my breath.
- mmargerum 6y ago
  Check out Lazarus. It's a Delphi clone and is portable across mac, windows, and nix
  - krageon 6y ago
    I hadn't heard of this yet, but now I may actually start using it. Thanks!
- eivarv 6y ago
  I've used wxWidgets, Qt, etc. using several languages, on several projects, and haven't really had any major issues. Given this experience, I just don't get how cross-platform UI-frameworks are somehow a bigger PITA than pulling in and involving a whole other set of technologies.
the_duke 6y ago
Not related to "native UI" vs browser, but still an important distinction: Unlike Electron, Webview does not embed a browser, but uses the platform-native browser engine. That's Cocoa/WebKit on Mac OS and Edge on Windows. Since Linux doesn't have a one, gtk-webkit is used there. This allows for very small binaries, but necessitates dealing with the platform incompatibilities.
- eivarv 6y ago
  It's an important distinction, for sure – but it only addresses one (of the many) tradeoffs made in such a decision.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Browser-based apps get you a lot more flexibility and it's much easier to find developers for it. I mean ideally you'd create a native application for all operating systems and use their native frameworks, but you need to hire at least two developers (for redundancy / knowledge sharing) per platform and it'll be a constant struggle to keep features aligned. It can be done, but you need a clear vision, alignment, some independence for the native app developers, etc. But it's pretty much unfeasible for solo developers.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I wonder how do all those freelancers doing native mobile apps manage, or how we did back in the heterogeneous days of home computing.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    They manage because they're paid to work on one platform, not a solo developer trying to launch their product on all platforms.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      They are paid to work on whatever platforms the customer is hiring their guns for. And again we managed as solo developers, or with very tiny teams to do that in the context of 8 and 16 bit home micros, which meant writing lots of Assembly and hardware specific code in the process. So I guess strangely younger generations cannot manage to go to school bare foots uphill in snow both ways.
- eivarv 6y ago
  There are frameworks, such as Qt and wxWidgets (desktop), that offer native or near-native widgets for all major platform. Given that most of these have bindings to many languages, I don't understand why one would involve a browser-runtime and whole other set of technologies.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago

by eivarv 6y ago

In general, why would one take this approach of embedding a browser, compiling to WASM, etc. over a native UI? I'm genuinely curious why/when this is a better solution.

krageon 6y ago

Building native UIs cross-platform is a huge PITA and frequently the frameworks are also very annoying to use. I don't condone the use of browsers for desktop software because it is a travesty, but it is very understandable when you look at how we got here.

techntoke 6y ago
Ad companies insistent on spying while funding JS development schools?
Gibbon1 6y ago
You watch .Net core is going to curb stomp all that kind of crap.
- sime2009 6y ago
  Can you explain how for those of us who don't follow .Net very closely?
  - krageon 6y ago
    It doesn't, because .net core doesn't ship with cross-platform GUI toolkits. You have the usual options, which are all bad.
    - fassssst 6y ago
      https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-multi-platform-app-ui/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-multi-...
      - longstation 6y ago
        Linux is not supported.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        yet
        krageon 6y ago
        From what I can tell of the repository, it's up to the "Community" to make a Linux version of this.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        There are three problems. One that even with the resources MS has at it's disposal it's taken them half a decade to make their framework cross platform. Second it makes sense for them to target the big three that represents 95% of the market. And Linux desktop isn't one of those. And third the Linux community is hostile. Back in 2010 they could have embraced Mono which was sorely needed but didn't out of just spite. Brings up a third point when talking about development. Microsoft is providing a posix compatible dev environment under Win10. The threat that poses is completely unappreciated.
        krageon 6y ago
        The open-source community doesn't like Microsoft because Microsoft is hostile to open-source. It's their MO to embrace things first and people with short memories laud them for it every time. It's very disingenuous to quote their hostility as one of the problems when really it's a logical historical development. They're going to have to put in a lot more effort to make amends for all the terrible things they've done over the years. But all of that is really beside the point. Saying the "community" needs to fix it means they won't put time or effort into doing it themselves, which by extension means the integration will most likely never be as good as what they have prioritised. This will relegate their "cross-platform" solution to the realm of all the other frameworks: Bad.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Judging by Microsofts previous half-baked, unfinished and abandoned UI frameworks I'm not holding my breath.
mmargerum 6y ago
Check out Lazarus. It's a Delphi clone and is portable across mac, windows, and nix
- krageon 6y ago
  I hadn't heard of this yet, but now I may actually start using it. Thanks!
eivarv 6y ago
I've used wxWidgets, Qt, etc. using several languages, on several projects, and haven't really had any major issues. Given this experience, I just don't get how cross-platform UI-frameworks are somehow a bigger PITA than pulling in and involving a whole other set of technologies.

the_duke 6y ago

Not related to "native UI" vs browser, but still an important distinction: Unlike Electron, Webview does not embed a browser, but uses the platform-native browser engine. That's Cocoa/WebKit on Mac OS and Edge on Windows. Since Linux doesn't have a one, gtk-webkit is used there. This allows for very small binaries, but necessitates dealing with the platform incompatibilities.

eivarv 6y ago
It's an important distinction, for sure – but it only addresses one (of the many) tradeoffs made in such a decision.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

Browser-based apps get you a lot more flexibility and it's much easier to find developers for it. I mean ideally you'd create a native application for all operating systems and use their native frameworks, but you need to hire at least two developers (for redundancy / knowledge sharing) per platform and it'll be a constant struggle to keep features aligned. It can be done, but you need a clear vision, alignment, some independence for the native app developers, etc. But it's pretty much unfeasible for solo developers.

pjmlp 6y ago
I wonder how do all those freelancers doing native mobile apps manage, or how we did back in the heterogeneous days of home computing.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  They manage because they're paid to work on one platform, not a solo developer trying to launch their product on all platforms.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    They are paid to work on whatever platforms the customer is hiring their guns for. And again we managed as solo developers, or with very tiny teams to do that in the context of 8 and 16 bit home micros, which meant writing lots of Assembly and hardware specific code in the process. So I guess strangely younger generations cannot manage to go to school bare foots uphill in snow both ways.
eivarv 6y ago
There are frameworks, such as Qt and wxWidgets (desktop), that offer native or near-native widgets for all major platform. Given that most of these have bindings to many languages, I don't understand why one would involve a browser-runtime and whole other set of technologies.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago