> a Rust port of Qt might be more workable than bindings to the C++ toolkit. That's an interesting idea! it might be worth considering it, at least. I wasn't

> a Rust port of Qt might be more workable than bindings to the C++ toolkit. That's an interesting idea! it might be worth considering it, at least. I wasn't thinking of a full-blown bindings that cover 100% of the API which is an immense task and, as your sibling comments thinks, was a mistake. A more opinionated stance of what parts of the Qt features are deemed necessary seems more feasible in the short to medium term. I wasn't advocating for one specific way of doing it, but for the more general sentiment that reinventing the wheel and creating a new toolkit from scratch is definitely the most expensive of all the options, in terms of human effort, time dedicated, and progress achieved. We'd basically be decades later than other OSS options, why not build upon their shoulders instead?