2 ms·
I think you might be misunderstanding the parent comment. It sounds to me like they're arguing in favor of wrapping C GUI library when writing a GUI app in Rust
by saghm 9mo ago
I think you might be misunderstanding the parent comment. It sounds to me like they're arguing in favor of wrapping C GUI library when writing a GUI app in Rust, not avoiding Rust entirely. As far as I can tell, they're arguing for writing new stuff in Rust that happens to be re-using some components that aren't in Rust. I'd argue that's entirely in the spirit of Rust; kind of the whole point is that you can put a hard boundary on where the unsafety lies and make everything safe outside of that boundary. When I use a Vec or a HashMap, there's unsafe code under the hood, but it doesn't stop me from writing my own code without needing to dip into unsafe at all, and there's no fundamental reason why the same couldn't be done by wrapping Qt or Gtk on Linux or Cocoa or MacOS.
- piker 9mo agoQt is great, but it's a commercial license.
- pixelesque 9mo agoNot if you dynamically link it. LGPL.
- piker 9mo agoIs it that simple?
- jauntywundrkind 9mo agoHappy 10 years to the GPL & LPGLv2.1->LGPLv3 license update & Qt starting to expose more of Qt. https://lwn.net/Articles/671755/ https://lwn.net/Articles/671755/
- apitman 9mo agoOn desktop it can be pretty simple. On mobile it can be a hot mess. Essentially with LGPL you have to provide a way for users to replace your version of the LGPL lib with one they choose. Also the company seems to be trying to wiggle out from under the open source spirit of the license the last few years, which doesn't bode well.