3 ms·
That's certainly true, but consider how many tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars were spent until web development reached the state it is in today. And how
by p-e-w 4y ago
That's certainly true, but consider how many tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars were spent until web development reached the state it is in today. And how many dead ends had to be explored before we had things like browser dev tools with integrated support for React. Think of all the frameworks that no one uses anymore, the abandoned bundlers, templates, entire languages like CoffeeScript, the list goes on and on.
The amount of brainpower invested in the web platform dwarfs what any native toolkit has been given. No wonder it's so good; it would have been a crazy waste of resources otherwise. I'm sure native toolkits would be just as user-friendly, or even better, if they had such lavish resources dedicated to improving them.
- deafpolygon 4y agoYou also want to mention an additional reason: native toolkits have to be tested multiple times; once for windows, once for macos, once again for Linux and whatever else you want to support. Even if you get QT deployed for a Mac version, there's still no guarantee they look the same on Windows. Each platform has its own quirk. With fewer developers working with these toolkits, we see less adoption, more issues, etc.