3 ms·
I am really flexible in terms of a toolkit's ergonomics. But I am running into situations where things just straight up don't work (Java/graalVM), or that I nee
by pdntspa 3y ago
I am really flexible in terms of a toolkit's ergonomics. But I am running into situations where things just straight up don't work (Java/graalVM), or that I need to implement some really basic interaction and there is no guidance in the documentation and the abstractions don't make any sense. (Avalonia)
And that's assuming it even compiles or packages.
So far the only winner has been QT (via pyside6 for me)
- HumblyTossed 3y agoI get it. And I completely agree on Avalonia. Personally, I'm not a big fan of that style programming where xml-ish glues stuff together. Makes hunting down errors a nightmare.
- kaba0 3y agoWhat doesn’t work with java/graalvm?
- pdntspa 3y agoI outlined my issues in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38266151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38266151 Someone suggested switching the JVM to hotspot and using jlink/jpackage, I am going to give that a shot
- kaba0 3y agoDepending on what you want, there might not be too much point in going native. Also, it is unfortunately true that GUI stuff is not yet well-handled by Graal AOT.
- pdntspa 3y agoI was drawn to the prospect of having a single EXE and having it run as native code On graalvm 20 I even got it to compile, but there were issues drawing/loading swing components