8 ms·

The problem with the controls is mostly because they don't want to pay for Qt (multiplatform toolkit), so instead every company (badly) implements their own con

The problem with the controls is mostly because they don't want to pay for Qt (multiplatform toolkit), so instead every company (badly) implements their own controls in HTML to save money. I suspect ultimately they waste much more money than they save.

whstl 3y ago
Qt isn't even in the radar of most companies currently building multi-platform applications in HTML. And it won't be soon, for two main reasons: developers able to use it are expensive, and most Qt applications in the wild still have the "uncanny valley" look and feel about them on every OS but Linux. Not to mention that with SaaS being more profitable than selling unlimited-use licenses, a lot of apps also have HTTP backends and webapp versions, which can share a lot of HTML/CSS/JS code with a browser-based desktop version. Think of Slack/Discord/VSCode/etc. Sure: Qt, Flutter, etc also have web versions, but they just don't look/feel as good in the browser as an HTML app normally can. If you want a "Premium" native look and feel, people gotta go directly to the source: native APIs. Qt won't do it without a lot of work. Lots of companies have separate Android and iOS teams. Or they go directly to HTML when there's not enough cash (or even things like Flutter, which look ok in mobile). High-quality macOS apps, like those made by Panic, Rogue Amoeba, etc, use Cocoa directly. Standardized controls and shortcuts unfortunately end up being collateral damage in all of this.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  All this sounds great from the perspective of retail shrink wrap software. Today, the major use cases for Qt on the desktop are in-house corporate software. And, no one cares about "uncanny valley". Only HN and online nerds care about that stuff. Average, non-technical, corporate users care about functions, not form. Hell, they are happy with a VBA app! Also, lots of in-car and in-seat (aeroplane) entertainment systems are built in Qt. If you want a "Premium" native look and feel Who is doing this in 2023? No one outside my examples above.
  - whstl 3y ago
    There's a reason in-house corporate software started becoming web based 15-or-so years ago: web is cheaper, easier to hire for, faster to develop and deploy, doesn't require installation or updates, easier to troubleshoot, doesn't need special pipes for communicating with the server (yeah I remember the days of DCOM, CORBA, WCF and other weird protocols instead of HTTP). It is things like Qt that only HN and online nerds care about. Don't get me wrong: I really like well made native apps and I think they're great. But Qt apps are almost never as great as software made with native toolkits directly.
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      No, long term, web apps are more expensive because the front end needs to be completely re-written ever few years. A desktop app written in Qt can be kept running for a decade with very little work. (This assumes no Qt library upgrades, which for in-house apps, are most unnecessary.) The primary advantage of web apps is "zero install", which is a major point of friction at large corps.
      - whstl 3y ago
        “because the front end needs to be completely re-written ever few years” Citation needed. I’m currently working in a jQuery+Coffeescript app that still works like a charm. Like the sibling post says, Qt itself had breaking changes that HTML/JS/CSS didn’t.
      - jpc0 3y ago
        > ...needs to be completely re-written ever few years. No it doesn't, the HTML spec hasn't changed, whereas QT has. The issue is how the webapps were built in the first place. You don't need Nextjs and all it's friends to post a form to a backend once an hour but somehow that is becoming the standard approach...
  - whstl 3y ago
    > Who is doing this in 2023? No one outside my examples above. For macOS check apps made by Apple (Logic, Final Cut), Panic, Rogue Amoeba, or apps like Pixelmator, Affinity, Pixelmator, TablePlus, Tower, Dash... there's more. There's even open source ones like IINA providing a premium look+feel.
- bombolo 3y ago
  Qt has uncanney valley... do you think people using HTML care to make things look native then?
  - whstl 3y ago
    No. Why would they? The reason HTML apps don’t suffer from the uncanny valley problem is because they don’t try to look native at all, it's just something totally different. When they suck it's not because it looks "almost but not quite there". But there are exceptions: when Cordova/Ionic tries to imitate the look of iOS/Android's native controls. Then we have an uncanny valley problem.
- jstimpfle 3y ago
  > If you want a "Premium" native look and feel, people gotta go directly to the source: native APIs. I've seen this regurgitated a hundred times, but I don't really know any more what that "native look and feel" is. On Windows, it might be the old Windows 95 controls, but those are quite limited. What system today is made of dropdowns, checkboxes and OK buttons?
  - whstl 3y ago
    Well, yeah. Windows is... special. Even Microsoft stopped using the normal controls. But the problem is that Qt looks like an uncanny valley version of those Windows 95-style apps. But by Premium I'm talking more about macOS, iOS and Android. For macOS check apps made by Apple, Panic, Rogue Amoeba, or apps like Pixelmator, Affinity, Pixelmator, TablePlus, FantastiCal, Tower, Dash. Or even "non flashy" apps like Pacifist. Those all use Cocoa and have a bit more of a slick appearance, even though they're mostly using native controls, with very few special parts here and there.
- mavhc 3y ago
  According to Microsoft, native look and feel includes tiny tiny dialog boxes with even smaller panes inside that can't be resized, so yeah, not going to bother with that

whstl 3y ago

Qt isn't even in the radar of most companies currently building multi-platform applications in HTML. And it won't be soon, for two main reasons: developers able to use it are expensive, and most Qt applications in the wild still have the "uncanny valley" look and feel about them on every OS but Linux. Not to mention that with SaaS being more profitable than selling unlimited-use licenses, a lot of apps also have HTTP backends and webapp versions, which can share a lot of HTML/CSS/JS code with a browser-based desktop version. Think of Slack/Discord/VSCode/etc. Sure: Qt, Flutter, etc also have web versions, but they just don't look/feel as good in the browser as an HTML app normally can. If you want a "Premium" native look and feel, people gotta go directly to the source: native APIs. Qt won't do it without a lot of work. Lots of companies have separate Android and iOS teams. Or they go directly to HTML when there's not enough cash (or even things like Flutter, which look ok in mobile). High-quality macOS apps, like those made by Panic, Rogue Amoeba, etc, use Cocoa directly. Standardized controls and shortcuts unfortunately end up being collateral damage in all of this.

throwaway2037 3y ago
All this sounds great from the perspective of retail shrink wrap software. Today, the major use cases for Qt on the desktop are in-house corporate software. And, no one cares about "uncanny valley". Only HN and online nerds care about that stuff. Average, non-technical, corporate users care about functions, not form. Hell, they are happy with a VBA app! Also, lots of in-car and in-seat (aeroplane) entertainment systems are built in Qt. If you want a "Premium" native look and feel Who is doing this in 2023? No one outside my examples above.
- whstl 3y ago
  There's a reason in-house corporate software started becoming web based 15-or-so years ago: web is cheaper, easier to hire for, faster to develop and deploy, doesn't require installation or updates, easier to troubleshoot, doesn't need special pipes for communicating with the server (yeah I remember the days of DCOM, CORBA, WCF and other weird protocols instead of HTTP). It is things like Qt that only HN and online nerds care about. Don't get me wrong: I really like well made native apps and I think they're great. But Qt apps are almost never as great as software made with native toolkits directly.
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    No, long term, web apps are more expensive because the front end needs to be completely re-written ever few years. A desktop app written in Qt can be kept running for a decade with very little work. (This assumes no Qt library upgrades, which for in-house apps, are most unnecessary.) The primary advantage of web apps is "zero install", which is a major point of friction at large corps.
    - whstl 3y ago
      “because the front end needs to be completely re-written ever few years” Citation needed. I’m currently working in a jQuery+Coffeescript app that still works like a charm. Like the sibling post says, Qt itself had breaking changes that HTML/JS/CSS didn’t.
    - jpc0 3y ago
      > ...needs to be completely re-written ever few years. No it doesn't, the HTML spec hasn't changed, whereas QT has. The issue is how the webapps were built in the first place. You don't need Nextjs and all it's friends to post a form to a backend once an hour but somehow that is becoming the standard approach...
- whstl 3y ago
  > Who is doing this in 2023? No one outside my examples above. For macOS check apps made by Apple (Logic, Final Cut), Panic, Rogue Amoeba, or apps like Pixelmator, Affinity, Pixelmator, TablePlus, Tower, Dash... there's more. There's even open source ones like IINA providing a premium look+feel.
bombolo 3y ago
Qt has uncanney valley... do you think people using HTML care to make things look native then?
- whstl 3y ago
  No. Why would they? The reason HTML apps don’t suffer from the uncanny valley problem is because they don’t try to look native at all, it's just something totally different. When they suck it's not because it looks "almost but not quite there". But there are exceptions: when Cordova/Ionic tries to imitate the look of iOS/Android's native controls. Then we have an uncanny valley problem.
jstimpfle 3y ago
> If you want a "Premium" native look and feel, people gotta go directly to the source: native APIs. I've seen this regurgitated a hundred times, but I don't really know any more what that "native look and feel" is. On Windows, it might be the old Windows 95 controls, but those are quite limited. What system today is made of dropdowns, checkboxes and OK buttons?
- whstl 3y ago
  Well, yeah. Windows is... special. Even Microsoft stopped using the normal controls. But the problem is that Qt looks like an uncanny valley version of those Windows 95-style apps. But by Premium I'm talking more about macOS, iOS and Android. For macOS check apps made by Apple, Panic, Rogue Amoeba, or apps like Pixelmator, Affinity, Pixelmator, TablePlus, FantastiCal, Tower, Dash. Or even "non flashy" apps like Pacifist. Those all use Cocoa and have a bit more of a slick appearance, even though they're mostly using native controls, with very few special parts here and there.
mavhc 3y ago
According to Microsoft, native look and feel includes tiny tiny dialog boxes with even smaller panes inside that can't be resized, so yeah, not going to bother with that