3 ms·

Forget responsive design and WYSIWYG... VSCode, Figma, Discord, Slack.. etc.. etc.. can be implemented with html and css and it's a better experience than any o

Forget responsive design and WYSIWYG... VSCode, Figma, Discord, Slack.. etc.. etc.. can be implemented with html and css and it's a better experience than any other GUI framework for any other platform.

solardev 3y ago
Why do you believe that (it's a better experience)? Are you talking about for the developer or the user?
- wiseowise 3y ago
  Both. As a developer you can tap into endless pit of resources for web development. As a user, you can access same program on all platforms without any changes and continue where you left off, what’s not to like?
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I would rather know straight-out that a company doesn’t have real native support.
    - moritzwarhier 3y ago
      I have used many native GUIs on Windows that looked blurry because they din't get font rendering right and that only work at a fixed window size. Both in enterprise and consumer software. Yes, they probably weren't holding it right, were written in Java and/or sth else. But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. I like native applications too, when done well. For example, I still like IntelliJ IIRC, this does use Java for GUI? Also it doesn't use native controls.
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        > But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. OCD.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        > But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. Some of it is integration, the UI just looks nicer for native apps and the graphical language is the same as the rest of the system. Some of it is performance, these non-native toolkits always seem to bring along too much junk. Some of it is vibes, if an organization is willing to invest in a native app, it seems like they are probably more interested in sticking around.
- tracerbulletx 3y ago
  So just for context the one's I've used are WPF, UIKit, Electron, and Qt. And using Electron was easiest to develop on for me because the tooling just worked, everything updates instantly in a real running browser environment, and layout was predictable and easy to get it to work exactly how I wanted on actual devices. Is that cause I have more experience with the browser platform? Maybe it is, but that is probably the other main reason people use it. Personally I think the dom and css makes total sense. A tree of nodes where you can address nodes with selectors to style them. Seems pretty ideal, I don't know what I would do differently.
moritzwarhier 3y ago
Well, I meant not only all screen sizes but also all feasible window sizes! I agree that HTML+CSS is a great GUI framework. Responsive design as a term has long gone out of fashion. But I see nothing wrong with its meaning.

solardev 3y ago

Why do you believe that (it's a better experience)? Are you talking about for the developer or the user?

wiseowise 3y ago
Both. As a developer you can tap into endless pit of resources for web development. As a user, you can access same program on all platforms without any changes and continue where you left off, what’s not to like?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  I would rather know straight-out that a company doesn’t have real native support.
  - moritzwarhier 3y ago
    I have used many native GUIs on Windows that looked blurry because they din't get font rendering right and that only work at a fixed window size. Both in enterprise and consumer software. Yes, they probably weren't holding it right, were written in Java and/or sth else. But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. I like native applications too, when done well. For example, I still like IntelliJ IIRC, this does use Java for GUI? Also it doesn't use native controls.
    - wiseowise 3y ago
      > But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. OCD.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      > But I don't understand where the sentiment that native=better comes from. Some of it is integration, the UI just looks nicer for native apps and the graphical language is the same as the rest of the system. Some of it is performance, these non-native toolkits always seem to bring along too much junk. Some of it is vibes, if an organization is willing to invest in a native app, it seems like they are probably more interested in sticking around.
tracerbulletx 3y ago
So just for context the one's I've used are WPF, UIKit, Electron, and Qt. And using Electron was easiest to develop on for me because the tooling just worked, everything updates instantly in a real running browser environment, and layout was predictable and easy to get it to work exactly how I wanted on actual devices. Is that cause I have more experience with the browser platform? Maybe it is, but that is probably the other main reason people use it. Personally I think the dom and css makes total sense. A tree of nodes where you can address nodes with selectors to style them. Seems pretty ideal, I don't know what I would do differently.

moritzwarhier 3y ago

Well, I meant not only all screen sizes but also all feasible window sizes! I agree that HTML+CSS is a great GUI framework. Responsive design as a term has long gone out of fashion. But I see nothing wrong with its meaning.