I'd be happier to see GTK+, Qt or another toolkit ported to .NET Core instead.
Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#32Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? I really don't care what language is used so log as JS is avoidable (It can still be a compilation target so it could even be JS), and I can make a snappy desktop app that takes 10 not 100mb. I'm not even sure which one I'm hoping for at the moment. Xamarin seems to have bet fully on mobile. Avalonia looks nice but feels like it w…
Standard WinForms and/or Java isn't too far off what you're describing if you're willing to install runtimes, but I know that's not what you're looking for and I see your point. The difficulty is that people used to agree (and at varying times, sue each other) over which metaphors to use. The desktop platforms are growing further apart on this front. Linux has so much work-in-progress happening at any one time that s…
Yeah, if Electron had just one advantage, it would be that it's available and works today.
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#33This reminds me of the project I am currently working on. .NET/QML https://github.com/pauldotknopf/net-core-qml Not quite production yet, but it will be soon. I'd love to here some input. You can check the unit tests for how things are working currently. At a certain point, I will also implement a Qml debugger in visual studio code.
Awesome. Starred!
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? Qt ticks all your marks (though the "easy" part is through QML which is a superset of JS), + mobile, (+ one day web maybe https://msorvig.github.io/qt-webassembly-examples/window_ope... though that's fairly experimental).
Yeah unfortunately it fails at the "10 MB" bit. Hello world in QML is like 50 MB. Also you can't statically link the GPL version which is just a bit of a pain. I agree if it allowed static linking and wasn't huge it would be perfect. Even so there aren't any better alternatives, but it sucks you can't make something as small and portable as e.g. putty.exe, or depends.exe.
Qt is under LGPL which allows static linking: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn...
This way, you can get under 20 megabytes: https://youtu.be/mbs3-XE0HNE?t=1180
Sadly I don't think it's possible to have at the same time "portable" (including to platforms without UIs at all, like DirectFB on linux) and small. Putty and depends.exe aren't portable at all.
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah unfortunately it fails at the "10 MB" bit. Hello world in QML is like 50 MB. Also you can't statically link the GPL version which is just a bit of a pain. I agree if it allowed static linking and wasn't huge it would be perfect. Even so there aren't any better alternatives, but it sucks you can't make something as small and portable as e.g. putty.exe, or depends.exe.
Qt is under LGPL which allows static linking: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn... This way, you can get under 20 megabytes: https://youtu.be/mbs3-XE0HNE?t=1180 Sadly I don't think it's possible to have at the same time "portable" (including to platforms without UIs at all, like DirectFB on linux) and small. Putty and depends.exe aren't portable at all.
LGPL does not allow static linking. From Qt's legal page:
In case of dynamic linking, it is possible, but not mandatory, to keep application source code proprietary as long as it is “work that uses the library” – typically achieved via dynamic linking of the library. In case of static linking of the library, the application itself may no longer be “work that uses the library” and thus become subject to LGPL. It is recommended to either link dynamically, or provide the application source code to the user under LGPL.
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qt is under LGPL which allows static linking: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn... This way, you can get under 20 megabytes: https://youtu.be/mbs3-XE0HNE?t=1180 Sadly I don't think it's possible to have at the same time "portable" (including to platforms without UIs at all, like DirectFB on linux) and small. Putty and depends.exe aren't portable at all.
LGPL does not allow static linking. From Qt's legal page: In case of dynamic linking, it is possible, but not mandatory, to keep application source code proprietary as long as it is “work that uses the library” – typically achieved via dynamic linking of the library. In case of static linking of the library, the application itself may no longer be “work that uses the library” and thus become subject to LGPL. It is re…
Please read the link I posted, which comes from the people who created the LGPL license:
> If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source) format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and relink the application
The only thing that matters from the point of view of the LGPL is that your users are able to update the LGPL parts in your app. This is possible with static linking. Else for instance how would LGPL be possible with languages that don't even have a notion of linking (eg script languages), or which only allow static linking ?
See also : https://stackoverflow.com/a/15322678/1495627
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#37Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? I really don't care what language is used so log as JS is avoidable (It can still be a compilation target so it could even be JS), and I can make a snappy desktop app that takes 10 not 100mb. I'm not even sure which one I'm hoping for at the moment. Xamarin seems to have bet fully on mobile. Avalonia looks nice but feels like it w…
There's some promising early stage projects in Rust world. They're all building on WebRender (firefox's new renderer), but without the DOM/JavaScript bit.
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#38Ok, I normally find myself disagreeing with HN every time Electron comes up. Basically, I think the upsides are worth the size and performance tradeoffs.
However, this seems to be almost an entire server deploy as well as a complete renderer all in one package. That does seem excessive to me for a desktop app.
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#39Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? I really don't care what language is used so log as JS is avoidable (It can still be a compilation target so it could even be JS), and I can make a snappy desktop app that takes 10 not 100mb. I'm not even sure which one I'm hoping for at the moment. Xamarin seems to have bet fully on mobile. Avalonia looks nice but feels like it w…
> Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? Qt ticks all your marks (though the "easy" part is through QML which is a superset of JS), + mobile, (+ one day web maybe https://msorvig.github.io/qt-webassembly-examples/window_ope... though that's fairly experimental).
yep, qt + wasm is the future
Re: Electron.Net: Build cross platform desktop apps using .NET core and ASP.NET core
#40Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? I really don't care what language is used so log as JS is avoidable (It can still be a compilation target so it could even be JS), and I can make a snappy desktop app that takes 10 not 100mb. I'm not even sure which one I'm hoping for at the moment. Xamarin seems to have bet fully on mobile. Avalonia looks nice but feels like it w…
> Can't we just make a proper, easy to use portable desktop application framework please? Qt ticks all your marks (though the "easy" part is through QML which is a superset of JS), + mobile, (+ one day web maybe https://msorvig.github.io/qt-webassembly-examples/window_ope... though that's fairly experimental).
we need a compiled language that splits the generated code into backend, UI and a WASM binary.