5 ms·

See also: sixtyfps, which has been started by two KDE contributors. https://github.com/sixtyfpsui/sixtyfps https://github.com/sixtyfpsui/sixtyfps https://news.

by est31 5y ago

See also: sixtyfps, which has been started by two KDE contributors. https://github.com/sixtyfpsui/sixtyfps https://github.com/sixtyfpsui/sixtyfps https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26958154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26958154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24919571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24919571 It's great to see GUI frameworks being designed in Rust, countering the trend of doing everything in Electron.

adamnemecek 5y ago
You should also check out the femtovg project, a 2D rendering API that sixtyfps relies on. https://github.com/femtovg/femtovg https://github.com/femtovg/femtovg It's a decent starting point for trying to build your own toolkit. I have recently added a wgpu backend but for now it lives in my fork https://github.com/adamnemecek/femtovg https://github.com/adamnemecek/femtovg run the demo with `cargo run --example wgpu_demo --release`. Also join the femtovg discord https://discord.gg/V69VdVu https://discord.gg/V69VdVu
ComputerGuru 5y ago
sixtyfps is licensed under the GPL, so it's icky for anyone that isn't developing a GPL app and doesn't want to or can't shell out for the commercial license. Iced is licensed under the MIT license.
- ruined 5y ago
  sixtyfps is dual-license. you can contact them and negotiate a license for commercial use. i think this is a better scheme than straight mit which accommodates no demand for financial support to the developers.
- infogulch 5y ago
  It looks like there are actually 3 different pricing/license options. https://sixtyfps.io/#offering https://sixtyfps.io/#offering - GPLv3 - free - "Ambassador" - free commercial license (after approval), in exchange for marketing as being built with sixtyfps and authorization to use your logo and feedback - Normal commercial - paid I kinda like the addition of the "Ambassador" tier. Seems like a fair exchange for an in-development framework, and would be a good option for people that are building a new product and don't yet have the revenue to justify the cost during the prototyping phase.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    I wasn't aware of the "Ambassador" option and that changes the calculus for deciding between the different frameworks on the basis of the license, although the opaque "after approval" could mean anything and tbh gives me pause. Thanks for enlightening me. For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries"), which are both far more liberal than the GPL.
    - riquito 5y ago
      > For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries") That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        > That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it I didn't state an "opinion." I'm stating an observable fact. And don't paraphrase what I said - my words are right there and you don't need to play games with what I said or didn't say: I never said anything was "blessed," I merely pointed out that by and large, the Rust community has - whether you like it or not - mostly settled on MIT/Apache 2.0 (as in, the de facto license). I even couched my statement very carefully as referring to "foundational" crates, even though - as a matter of fact - it applies to the majority of published open source crates regardless of whether or not you consider them "foundational." You can see for yourself with this breakdown of crates on crates.io by license (scroll all the way to the right): https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 Different languages/communities built around common languages or frameworks tend to "settle" (there's that word again) on different licenses. These are typically (but not necessarily) the licenses that the language/framework itself is licensed under. In rust's case, the majority of what you might consider "foundational" crates - i.e. crates that are intended for consumption by the broader community to build the basis of other projects in the same way that you would depend on the standard library itself, be they runtimes, util libraries, etc. have, by and large, accepted either MIT or dual-licensed MIT/Apache2.0 as the default to start with, unless there's a compelling reason (such as starting a business around it!) to do otherwise. There's nothing wrong with picking a different license, it's just less likely for the community to converge around a more strictly licensed option. That's just the way the world works.
- est31 5y ago
  That's a good point, and it might scare some people away, but the same model already exists for Qt, and is very successful there. Sure, nobody knows how successful Qt would have been had it been MIT licensed. But still, people do buy Qt. Generally, the moment you sell something you can also afford licenses for a library, because money gets involved.
  - nyanpasu64 5y ago
    Much as Qt attempts to convince its users otherwise, the core of Qt is LGPL and can be dynamically linked with proprietary apps. SixtyFPS's GPL license has no such option, though the ambassador license may fulfill the same purpose (to some extent, while it lasts).

by est31 5y ago

adamnemecek 5y ago

You should also check out the femtovg project, a 2D rendering API that sixtyfps relies on. https://github.com/femtovg/femtovg https://github.com/femtovg/femtovg It's a decent starting point for trying to build your own toolkit. I have recently added a wgpu backend but for now it lives in my fork https://github.com/adamnemecek/femtovg https://github.com/adamnemecek/femtovg run the demo with `cargo run --example wgpu_demo --release`. Also join the femtovg discord https://discord.gg/V69VdVu https://discord.gg/V69VdVu

ComputerGuru 5y ago

sixtyfps is licensed under the GPL, so it's icky for anyone that isn't developing a GPL app and doesn't want to or can't shell out for the commercial license. Iced is licensed under the MIT license.

ruined 5y ago
sixtyfps is dual-license. you can contact them and negotiate a license for commercial use. i think this is a better scheme than straight mit which accommodates no demand for financial support to the developers.
infogulch 5y ago
It looks like there are actually 3 different pricing/license options. https://sixtyfps.io/#offering https://sixtyfps.io/#offering - GPLv3 - free - "Ambassador" - free commercial license (after approval), in exchange for marketing as being built with sixtyfps and authorization to use your logo and feedback - Normal commercial - paid I kinda like the addition of the "Ambassador" tier. Seems like a fair exchange for an in-development framework, and would be a good option for people that are building a new product and don't yet have the revenue to justify the cost during the prototyping phase.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  I wasn't aware of the "Ambassador" option and that changes the calculus for deciding between the different frameworks on the basis of the license, although the opaque "after approval" could mean anything and tbh gives me pause. Thanks for enlightening me. For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries"), which are both far more liberal than the GPL.
  - riquito 5y ago
    > For the record, the rust community has mostly settled around dual-licensing under MIT/Apache for what you can call "foundational" crates ("libraries") That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      > That's just your opinion, there's no such thing as a blessed license scheme by the community. GPL is a perfectly valid choice if you feel like it I didn't state an "opinion." I'm stating an observable fact. And don't paraphrase what I said - my words are right there and you don't need to play games with what I said or didn't say: I never said anything was "blessed," I merely pointed out that by and large, the Rust community has - whether you like it or not - mostly settled on MIT/Apache 2.0 (as in, the de facto license). I even couched my statement very carefully as referring to "foundational" crates, even though - as a matter of fact - it applies to the majority of published open source crates regardless of whether or not you consider them "foundational." You can see for yourself with this breakdown of crates on crates.io by license (scroll all the way to the right): https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 https://gist.github.com/passcod/2e1983ce415b32bdf3a0 Different languages/communities built around common languages or frameworks tend to "settle" (there's that word again) on different licenses. These are typically (but not necessarily) the licenses that the language/framework itself is licensed under. In rust's case, the majority of what you might consider "foundational" crates - i.e. crates that are intended for consumption by the broader community to build the basis of other projects in the same way that you would depend on the standard library itself, be they runtimes, util libraries, etc. have, by and large, accepted either MIT or dual-licensed MIT/Apache2.0 as the default to start with, unless there's a compelling reason (such as starting a business around it!) to do otherwise. There's nothing wrong with picking a different license, it's just less likely for the community to converge around a more strictly licensed option. That's just the way the world works.
est31 5y ago
That's a good point, and it might scare some people away, but the same model already exists for Qt, and is very successful there. Sure, nobody knows how successful Qt would have been had it been MIT licensed. But still, people do buy Qt. Generally, the moment you sell something you can also afford licenses for a library, because money gets involved.
- nyanpasu64 5y ago
  Much as Qt attempts to convince its users otherwise, the core of Qt is LGPL and can be dynamically linked with proprietary apps. SixtyFPS's GPL license has no such option, though the ambassador license may fulfill the same purpose (to some extent, while it lasts).