4 ms·

Hopefully we'll get cross-platform (desktops, mobile, and web) GUI libraries that aren't using webtech on non-web platforms soon. Flutter is already viable, I b

by tormeh 4y ago

Hopefully we'll get cross-platform (desktops, mobile, and web) GUI libraries that aren't using webtech on non-web platforms soon. Flutter is already viable, I believe. There are also some interesting movements in Rust-land: Lapce uses Druid to run on all desktop platforms. Sadly, neither Druid nor Iced support the mobile OSes yet. But eventually we might be able to forget about all these Electron and Electron-esque messes.

ravenstine 4y ago
They already exist, but few want to use them. Qt is a thing and has been for a very long time. It really wouldn't take much effort to interface with it from JavaScript.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Qt more or less requires you to write C++ though, so it's understandable people don't want to use it. Even if you use QML you'll still write most of your app in C++. Plus, customising the look of Qt apps is way way more difficult than web apps. QtQuick is better than QtWidgets but it's also waaaaay less mature. For instance you can't make custom scenegraph widgets containing text.
  - ravenstine 4y ago
    Anything that is "native" is going to require FFI integration into whatever dynamic language it is being used with. Also, C++ really isn't that hard for a JS developer to learn for the purpose of creating a native UI system. > QtQuick is better than QtWidgets but it's also waaaaay less mature. No one should be using Quick, IMO.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      > No one should be using Quick, IMO. I agree - I meant it is better in terms of animation/styling support. Worse in just about every other way.
postalrat 4y ago
I wouldn't hold my breath. Systems engineers have been trying and failing for years to do this. Modern web browser finally did what they couldn't.
- croes 4y ago
  Using an incredible amount of system resources for simple tasks? Creating an equally slow UX on multiple platforms?
  - satao 4y ago
    Make UI dvelopment fast and accessible so people can move human resources in other areas of development?
    - croes 4y ago
      I prefer a fast UI over fast UI development. Todays web based apps tend to skip my inputs if I type to fast, and I'm not a fast typer. Apps stand and fall with their UI. Apps should please their user nit their developer and I say that as a developer. The goal of an app is to make the life of it's users easier not mine. It's my blood, sweat and tears so they can save theirs for their job.
      - dmix 4y ago
        Linear.app has shown that a web-powered desktop app can be as fast as a native desktop app. There's still tons of room to make web powered desktop apps better than the current mainstream Electron ones - without abandoning the browser. There's a commercial project that's trying to make linear's architecture into a framework: https://replicache.dev/ https://replicache.dev/ Demo: https://repliear.herokuapp.com/d/lXsPEs2kl6?view=active https://repliear.herokuapp.com/d/lXsPEs2kl6?view=active
asdajksah2123 4y ago
I think people really underestimate the strength, and brilliance, of the web platform. Flutter is available. But with Flutter you're largely gonna be limited to the widgets and design styling created by Google. QT exists. But QT will also be driven by the needs of the QT corporation. The way web tech has evolved, however, there are a whole bunch of different widget libraries, a whole bunch of different design philosophies, a whole bunch of different platforms that you can build on, from the largest companies in the world to individual developers. It's very hard to see how any other tech can ever evolve to this point. If any other company/developer creates an alternative stack, that stack will almost certainly be dominated by those creators. If instead, some sort of consortium comes together to create this non-web tech, it will move far too slow to catch up with the contemporary state of web tech, never mind where web tech would have reached over the time they spent on reaching that state.

by tormeh 4y ago

ravenstine 4y ago

They already exist, but few want to use them. Qt is a thing and has been for a very long time. It really wouldn't take much effort to interface with it from JavaScript.

IshKebab 4y ago
Qt more or less requires you to write C++ though, so it's understandable people don't want to use it. Even if you use QML you'll still write most of your app in C++. Plus, customising the look of Qt apps is way way more difficult than web apps. QtQuick is better than QtWidgets but it's also waaaaay less mature. For instance you can't make custom scenegraph widgets containing text.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  Anything that is "native" is going to require FFI integration into whatever dynamic language it is being used with. Also, C++ really isn't that hard for a JS developer to learn for the purpose of creating a native UI system. > QtQuick is better than QtWidgets but it's also waaaaay less mature. No one should be using Quick, IMO.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    > No one should be using Quick, IMO. I agree - I meant it is better in terms of animation/styling support. Worse in just about every other way.

postalrat 4y ago

I wouldn't hold my breath. Systems engineers have been trying and failing for years to do this. Modern web browser finally did what they couldn't.

croes 4y ago
Using an incredible amount of system resources for simple tasks? Creating an equally slow UX on multiple platforms?
- satao 4y ago
  Make UI dvelopment fast and accessible so people can move human resources in other areas of development?
  - croes 4y ago
    I prefer a fast UI over fast UI development. Todays web based apps tend to skip my inputs if I type to fast, and I'm not a fast typer. Apps stand and fall with their UI. Apps should please their user nit their developer and I say that as a developer. The goal of an app is to make the life of it's users easier not mine. It's my blood, sweat and tears so they can save theirs for their job.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Linear.app has shown that a web-powered desktop app can be as fast as a native desktop app. There's still tons of room to make web powered desktop apps better than the current mainstream Electron ones - without abandoning the browser. There's a commercial project that's trying to make linear's architecture into a framework: https://replicache.dev/ https://replicache.dev/ Demo: https://repliear.herokuapp.com/d/lXsPEs2kl6?view=active https://repliear.herokuapp.com/d/lXsPEs2kl6?view=active

asdajksah2123 4y ago

I think people really underestimate the strength, and brilliance, of the web platform. Flutter is available. But with Flutter you're largely gonna be limited to the widgets and design styling created by Google. QT exists. But QT will also be driven by the needs of the QT corporation. The way web tech has evolved, however, there are a whole bunch of different widget libraries, a whole bunch of different design philosophies, a whole bunch of different platforms that you can build on, from the largest companies in the world to individual developers. It's very hard to see how any other tech can ever evolve to this point. If any other company/developer creates an alternative stack, that stack will almost certainly be dominated by those creators. If instead, some sort of consortium comes together to create this non-web tech, it will move far too slow to catch up with the contemporary state of web tech, never mind where web tech would have reached over the time they spent on reaching that state.