Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fucking Color Picker

tonymccoy.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: Fucking Color Picker

#32

Post by Theodores »

I think this is more down to Apple style workflow than actual requirements.

With Apple you have to do things the special Apple way because Steve Jobs said so.

On Linux I am not thinking 'oh, where is my system wide colour picker and getting irate because there isn't one'. The colour picker works fine in the image editor program, with the browser add on I am covered for practically every use case.

Sure I had to add the browser extension and would be stuck without it, but my thinking was to get the browser extension rather than even think to install an OS widget.

I can't say that I have had a genuine need for a OS level colour picker ever. It is just not something needed. And no, just because I am not on an Apple machine does not mean I don't do anything 'creative'.

With Linux there are plenty of colour pickers already out there, 'pick' is very neat as it gives you a little screenshot of the context of where you got your colour from with a sensible colour name given too (albeit not a standard X-Windows style one, so you get 'Hot Cinnamon' instead of 'chocolate').

Re: Fucking Color Picker

#34

Post by phiresky »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #10

Wow, this is waaaay too big for my taste. I'm absolutely sure it is possible to write the same cross-platform app for less than 500KBytes and no dependencies.

Yes, this 450 line program could have been written in whatever native language you want with probably 3x the code and time spent, but why would you? Developer time has been more expensive than hardware for a decade now.

Everyone here loves to virtue signal about how horrible programs that take 0.01% of the space of a normal SSD and 1% of the RAM are, but the fact is that it does not matter at all, and you wouldn't even have noticed if you hadn't intentionally looked at the size of it.

Re: Fucking Color Picker

#39

Post by lazyjones »

phiresky wrote: post #34
stephc_int13 wrote: post #10

Wow, this is waaaay too big for my taste. I'm absolutely sure it is possible to write the same cross-platform app for less than 500KBytes and no dependencies.

Yes, this 450 line program could have been written in whatever native language you want with probably 3x the code and time spent, but why would you? Developer time has been more expensive than hardware for a decade now. Everyone here loves to virtue signal about how horrible programs that take 0.01% of the space of a normal SSD and 1% of the RAM are, but the fact is that it does not matter at all, and you wouldn't ev…

> Developer time has been more expensive than hardware for a decade now.

How about developer time of 1 person vs. hardware (and electricity, CO2 emissions...) of 1 million users?

Re: Fucking Color Picker

#40

Post by Benjamin_Dobell »

nieksand wrote: post #13
pooya72 wrote: post #2

I know some people think Electron is cancer[1], but it is the fastest way to write cross-platform applications. I've been trying to learn to make apps for macOS, and it feels like even Apple doesn't want me write apps for the Mac. [1]: https://medium.com/commitlog/electron-is-cancer-b066108e6c32

Is it actually faster to develop in Electron than with QT and C++? It has been over a decade, but I remember it being both straight-forward and pleasant to support Linux, Windows, and MacOS. I vaguely recall supporting Solaris too.

To be fair to Electron, Qt is an enormous dependency as well. Not as memory hungry at runtime, but Qt 5.12.1 frameworks for macOS are over 260MB. Granted, Qt is at least modular so you don't necessarily need them all.

However, given macOS apps don't really support shared libraries (at least in the typical sense), it adds up pretty quickly if you've got a few Qt apps.

Post reply on HN