3 ms·

This kind of got me thinking: What would it take for me to try my hand at developing a desktop app today? I am a developer. For the most part I've been doing w

by jtchang 14y ago

This kind of got me thinking: What would it take for me to try my hand at developing a desktop app today? I am a developer. For the most part I've been doing web applications (with a bit of mobile). This is mostly because I feel there isn't any money to be made in desktop apps. Piracy, distribution, etc. Lots of headaches. Could this change things? Possibly. Just like Java which was download once, run everywhere (haha kidding) we could have apps that are "uniplatform" (yeah I just made up a new word). I buy the app and it is good for desktop, mobile, web. It might give slightly different experiences but my data is still all the same in the back. One of the closest apps I can think of like this is Google Chat/Talk. I can start a conversation in a web browser window, reply using Pidgin, and finish off a conversation on my Android. It is relatively seamless.

pizza 14y ago
Even better; a Steam application API: write code once and it's available on any Steam-able OS. Cloud storage and desktop power and a huge userbase would make this a tasty platform.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  They would be better off just publishing NaCl applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  How would that be any different than Java?! Of course, except from the fact that Java lacked the distribution channel. IMO, That's horrible - nightmare scenario. As a Mac user, I hate nothing more than cross-platform apps. They're ugly and lack almost all the features that makes OS X a great user operating system.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    You mean like iTunes and Safari? Because Windows users think the same of cross-platform Mac apps.
    - pooriaazimi 14y ago
      Exactly. But they weren't "cross-platform Mac apps". They were poorly-done "ports" (i.e. the UI code was not shared). iTunes is garbage on all platforms, and its update is long overdue. But Safari (4.0+) is great on OS X. I use it as my main browser (and find it vastly superior to Chrome or Firefox 3.6+ for my needs). The windows port of Safari (which has been discontinued recently, incidentally) was always horrible, much below the standard of Windows apps, and far below the standard of OS X apps.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        They were ports? The fact iTunes needed "Apple Application Support", and ran on Carbon, made me think as a Windows user it wasn't changed much from the Mac versions. EDIT: Huh, iTunes has since moved on from Carbon.
brador 14y ago
Yeah, that's pretty much a webapp. Key point is the backend/data is on your side and users access it using a dumb terminal (mobile, web, desktop). Users can save a javescript webpage and run it from their desktop, but they'd still need web access to get to that data you're storing. Would you class that as a "desktop" app? Or is a desktop app just software that works offline? Or has no other front end software (like a browser) dependencies?

by jtchang 14y ago

pizza 14y ago

Even better; a Steam application API: write code once and it's available on any Steam-able OS. Cloud storage and desktop power and a huge userbase would make this a tasty platform.

jiggy2011 14y ago
They would be better off just publishing NaCl applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client
pooriaazimi 14y ago
How would that be any different than Java?! Of course, except from the fact that Java lacked the distribution channel. IMO, That's horrible - nightmare scenario. As a Mac user, I hate nothing more than cross-platform apps. They're ugly and lack almost all the features that makes OS X a great user operating system.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  You mean like iTunes and Safari? Because Windows users think the same of cross-platform Mac apps.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    Exactly. But they weren't "cross-platform Mac apps". They were poorly-done "ports" (i.e. the UI code was not shared). iTunes is garbage on all platforms, and its update is long overdue. But Safari (4.0+) is great on OS X. I use it as my main browser (and find it vastly superior to Chrome or Firefox 3.6+ for my needs). The windows port of Safari (which has been discontinued recently, incidentally) was always horrible, much below the standard of Windows apps, and far below the standard of OS X apps.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      They were ports? The fact iTunes needed "Apple Application Support", and ran on Carbon, made me think as a Windows user it wasn't changed much from the Mac versions. EDIT: Huh, iTunes has since moved on from Carbon.

brador 14y ago

Yeah, that's pretty much a webapp. Key point is the backend/data is on your side and users access it using a dumb terminal (mobile, web, desktop). Users can save a javescript webpage and run it from their desktop, but they'd still need web access to get to that data you're storing. Would you class that as a "desktop" app? Or is a desktop app just software that works offline? Or has no other front end software (like a browser) dependencies?