3 ms·
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 Jav
by 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 agoQt 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 agoAnything 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.