4 ms·

Rust certainly needs more GUI component collections. There are lots of GUI toolkits, but a comparatively small number of prebuilt components you can use with an

Rust certainly needs more GUI component collections. There are lots of GUI toolkits, but a comparatively small number of prebuilt components you can use with any of them. This collection looks quite useful, though the component list is mostly indistinguishable from a list of components for a web framework. The webview component is the only one that seems somewhat specific to native applications. So for something like a file-open dialog you would still have to pull in something like rfd [1] and lose styling consistency 1: https://docs.rs/rfd/latest/rfd/ https://docs.rs/rfd/latest/rfd/

patwoz 1y ago
You should always use the native file picker and not shipping your own. That’s a good thing.
nu11ptr 1y ago
Even though most UI libraries now draw their own widgets some native integration is almost always used/desired. Those integrations are typically: keyboard short cuts, native system menu (macOS), native file dialogs, and (sometimes) native context menus. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting, but these minimal integrations are a good thing as they give the user some sense of familiarity.
- filleduchaos 1y ago
  Not just a sense of familiarity; you will simply never build the full spectrum of a file explorer's functionality in a custom file dialog, that would be a complete waste of engineering time. And many more users than you'd expect benefit from the fact that native file dialogs are actually full-fledged explorers. For example, I fairly often find myself quick-previewing a file to be sure it's the correct one when I select it.
  - tredre3 1y ago
    Thankfully on Macos x and Windows, the file picker isn't provided by the UI toolkit (though they usually provide abstract methods of calling it, for convenience). Linux is now working towards that goal as well, in the form of XDG Desktop Portal. It puts the Desktop Environment (or third party provider) in charge of providing services like the file dialog/picker/chooser for better integration/coherence. It's not been fully adopted yet, but I'm very excited about it because GTK's file chooser is just awful and I want to provide my own to those apps!
berkes 1y ago
> lose styling consistency Yes. And that is (almost always¹) a good thing. Only the designers of an app, product-owners etc. want their app to "look consistent over platforms". Your users want the file-dialog, window-chrome, menus etc consistent too. But for them consistent means consistent with the 20+ other applications they use on a daily base. So native. ¹ Obviously some software excepted. E.g. categories like "expert software" like Blender, AutoCAD, Photoshop/CS, where dialogs must a) be optimized for their niche workflow and b) remain consistent for that user when they upgrade their OS or move between OSes. But that's an exception. Your TODO-list app or PDF reader almost certainly is not that.
- kragen 1y ago
  Emacs, which still uses CUI-incompatible keybindings and even key names from a keyboard that hasn't been made since the 01980s. Videogames. Excel still supports MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 "/" commands, although it certainly doesn't look like Lotus for MS-DOS. Basically any software people care about is an exception to your rule.
  - berkes 1y ago
    > E.g. categories like "expert software" As pointed out.
- anonymous908213 1y ago
  > Your users want the file-dialog, window-chrome, menus etc consistent too. But for them consistent means consistent with the 20+ other applications they use on a daily base. So native. I don't think what you posit is true at all, at least not in 2025. Windows itself has abandoned consistency between its native applications, with more custom and modern styling that looks nothing like what you get out of the box with Windows UI frameworks. Almost every piece of software currently running on my computer has custom chrome: the web browser, my VPN, VSCode, Discord, Steam, mouse driver, keyboard driver, laptop fan driver. The only one that doesn't is qbittorent, and it looks like a complete eyesore. It is quite literally the odd one out, so much for "consistent with 20+ other applications". Maybe it's different in MacOS land, but from my perspective you're 20 years behind if your application is trying to blend in with the OS in any regard other than the corner in which the X button is located. That way of thinking went out of fashion decades ago, and good riddance to it because things look much better now. What I mentioned above is a pretty good representative sample of my daily use, and the more I think about other software I occasionally use, the more I am grateful that nobody else still thinks like this. LiveSplit and Asesprite come to mind as two applications that strongly benefit from having bespoke chrome and wouldn't be nearly as nice to use if they looked anything like a native Windows application. Of course, my own software uses custom chrome as well, because looking nice makes it more pleasant to use, wouldn't you know it.

patwoz 1y ago

You should always use the native file picker and not shipping your own. That’s a good thing.

nu11ptr 1y ago

Even though most UI libraries now draw their own widgets some native integration is almost always used/desired. Those integrations are typically: keyboard short cuts, native system menu (macOS), native file dialogs, and (sometimes) native context menus. I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting, but these minimal integrations are a good thing as they give the user some sense of familiarity.

filleduchaos 1y ago
Not just a sense of familiarity; you will simply never build the full spectrum of a file explorer's functionality in a custom file dialog, that would be a complete waste of engineering time. And many more users than you'd expect benefit from the fact that native file dialogs are actually full-fledged explorers. For example, I fairly often find myself quick-previewing a file to be sure it's the correct one when I select it.
- tredre3 1y ago
  Thankfully on Macos x and Windows, the file picker isn't provided by the UI toolkit (though they usually provide abstract methods of calling it, for convenience). Linux is now working towards that goal as well, in the form of XDG Desktop Portal. It puts the Desktop Environment (or third party provider) in charge of providing services like the file dialog/picker/chooser for better integration/coherence. It's not been fully adopted yet, but I'm very excited about it because GTK's file chooser is just awful and I want to provide my own to those apps!

berkes 1y ago

> lose styling consistency Yes. And that is (almost always¹) a good thing. Only the designers of an app, product-owners etc. want their app to "look consistent over platforms". Your users want the file-dialog, window-chrome, menus etc consistent too. But for them consistent means consistent with the 20+ other applications they use on a daily base. So native. ¹ Obviously some software excepted. E.g. categories like "expert software" like Blender, AutoCAD, Photoshop/CS, where dialogs must a) be optimized for their niche workflow and b) remain consistent for that user when they upgrade their OS or move between OSes. But that's an exception. Your TODO-list app or PDF reader almost certainly is not that.

kragen 1y ago
Emacs, which still uses CUI-incompatible keybindings and even key names from a keyboard that hasn't been made since the 01980s. Videogames. Excel still supports MS-DOS Lotus 1-2-3 "/" commands, although it certainly doesn't look like Lotus for MS-DOS. Basically any software people care about is an exception to your rule.
- berkes 1y ago
  > E.g. categories like "expert software" As pointed out.
anonymous908213 1y ago
> Your users want the file-dialog, window-chrome, menus etc consistent too. But for them consistent means consistent with the 20+ other applications they use on a daily base. So native. I don't think what you posit is true at all, at least not in 2025. Windows itself has abandoned consistency between its native applications, with more custom and modern styling that looks nothing like what you get out of the box with Windows UI frameworks. Almost every piece of software currently running on my computer has custom chrome: the web browser, my VPN, VSCode, Discord, Steam, mouse driver, keyboard driver, laptop fan driver. The only one that doesn't is qbittorent, and it looks like a complete eyesore. It is quite literally the odd one out, so much for "consistent with 20+ other applications". Maybe it's different in MacOS land, but from my perspective you're 20 years behind if your application is trying to blend in with the OS in any regard other than the corner in which the X button is located. That way of thinking went out of fashion decades ago, and good riddance to it because things look much better now. What I mentioned above is a pretty good representative sample of my daily use, and the more I think about other software I occasionally use, the more I am grateful that nobody else still thinks like this. LiveSplit and Asesprite come to mind as two applications that strongly benefit from having bespoke chrome and wouldn't be nearly as nice to use if they looked anything like a native Windows application. Of course, my own software uses custom chrome as well, because looking nice makes it more pleasant to use, wouldn't you know it.