• argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You forgot to read the very small fineprint after the rant hyperbole: *) true for desktop applications.

    Ignoring phones in 2023 is patent nonsense.

    You could go with C++ and QT. Though, writing C++ code is never easy/fun

    It’s also ludicrously expensive, so as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t exist.

    Everybody and his mother tries to push their custom iOS and Android apps, relegating web sites to the desktop.

    Madness. I’m not going to develop and maintain three completely different versions of the same app in perpetuity.

    Any multi platform GUI toolkit with a cross-compilable language will give you twice the functionality in half the development time over HTML+CSS+JavaScript.

    Maybe it would if one existed.

    I’m trying to paint a picture what a horrible absolute clusterfuck the web GUI technology stack is.

    I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see any viable alternative.

    • _cnt0@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also ludicrously expensive, so as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t exist.

      QT, writing C++, or both? Paying for a good technology can be cheaper in the long run if you save development time. And sure, developing in C++ is more expensive than JavaScript, because you can’t let cheap web code monkeys do it.

      Madness

      Indeed. But, very common madness.

      Maybe it would if one existed.

      I think I made it quite clear, that I set the scope for the desktop. There are several. At least QT even includes mobile.

      I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see any viable alternative.

      It’s nice to “agree to agree” sometimes ;-)

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        >QT, writing C++, or both?

        Qt.

        >Paying for a good technology can be cheaper in the long run if you save development time.

        Only until the price gets jacked up beyond what you can afford, and then you’re scrambling to rewrite your entire application to use something else that’s still affordable.

        >And sure, developing in C++ is more expensive than JavaScript, because you can’t let cheap web code monkeys do it.

        An awful lot of code is written in C++, so I’m not sure that was ever a serious constraint.

        >I think I made it quite clear, that I set the scope for the desktop. There are several.

        Sure, if we’re targeting desktop only, then there are lots of options: GTK, wxWidgets, Swing…

        But what does it matter? You can’t ignore mobile in 2023.

    • _cnt0@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Little add-on re viable alternative: Silverlight could have been nice, hadn’t Microsoft fucked it up and implemented it as a Windows-only ActiveX control.

      With .NET Core/.NET 5+ being open source and platform independent, that idea/concept could be revisited. A trimmed down .NET framework in a sandbox with proper DOM integration would be a massive upgrade over all the JavaScript garbage.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That only helps if there’s a viable FOSS toolchain for .NET, including editor and debugger, which as far as I know is still proprietary. Using proprietary development tools is to be avoided if at all possible, not only because of principles but also because they will create problems that you are powerless to solve.

        • _cnt0@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is the fully open source debugger from Samsung, the Red Hat derivate/extension for eclipse and others are in the works. I’m happily debugging .NET applications with JetBrains’ debugger on linux. One tool by Microsoft for the ecosystem not being open source, doesn’t change .NET (Core/5+) being open source. Embedding a stripped down .NET Framework in browsers as a replacement/alternative to JavaScript, even if not required, would likely lead to the development of one or more new debuggers anyways, to have an in-browser development experience similar to how it is now with JavaScript.