3 ms·

Most desktop programs don't need to rely on a DE (apart from some utilities). If Emacs can run anywhere, your programs can too. GTK or QT is more than enough. F

Most desktop programs don't need to rely on a DE (apart from some utilities). If Emacs can run anywhere, your programs can too. GTK or QT is more than enough. For anything else, you go with components on a needed basis, and they should preferably be desktop independent.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> If Emacs can run anywhere Any desktop program needs to be programmed against some API. In the case of Emacs, it's probably raw Xlib or a wrapper library on top of it. The problem with that is that (a) your dependency on X11, which is obsolete and has many documented inadequacies, (b) the lack of a modern widget library and toolkit makes extra, unnecessary work for the programmer, and (c) the lack of a cohesive visual language between programs makes the experience worse for the user. Toolkits like GTK and Qt solve all these problems. By avoiding them, you're just reinventing the wheel, poorly, every time.
- skydhash 1y ago
  Emacs has a GTK3 layer (among others) for its UI.
- dragandj 1y ago
  Emacs was there way before GTK and Qt appeared, though.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > Emacs was there way before GTK and Qt appeared, though. So your point is that we should use older technology even when it's been surpassed by better alternatives?
    - Narishma 1y ago
      Yes if the better alternatives are worse.
    - dragandj 1y ago
      I was pointing out that when we talk about reinventing the wheel, it wasn't the Emacs who was doing that, but the other guys. Whether they reinvented better or worse wheels is up to debate.