66
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
66 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
13361 readers
91 users here now
All things programming and coding related. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ignoring phones in 2023 is patent nonsense.
It's also ludicrously expensive, so as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist.
Madness. I'm not going to develop and maintain three completely different versions of the same app in perpetuity.
Maybe it would if one existed.
I don't disagree, but I also don't see any viable alternative.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. But, very common madness.
I think I made it quite clear, that I set the scope for the desktop. There are several. At least QT even includes mobile.
It's nice to "agree to agree" sometimes ;-)
Qt.
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.
An awful lot of code is written in C++, so I'm not sure that was ever a serious constraint.
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.