Live data from Hacker News

Clojure Desktop UI Framework

github.com

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#31
where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from?

There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use.

for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc.

2. likewise I don't think it matters that much.

my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#32
The readme says it is aiming for a “web look”, with no intention to make it look — and, presumably, behave — native. As a user, that’s not what I expect and hope for from a desktop application.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#33
post #18
post #10

I'm sure Clojure is a great language for some tasks... But, looking at the examples (picked the Wordle one since I know that game): https://github.com/HumbleUI/HumbleUI/blob/main/dev/examples/... I find it extremely hard to read. Even small snippets, say line 56 to 74 which define this "color", "merge-colors" and "colors"... then the "field" one lines 76 to 117 is even harder. is it more natural read for people famil…

As an experienced Clojure programmer, I found that code easy to read. It uses quite a few idioms that are specific to Clojure or at least Lisp. Examples include cond, let [{:keys ...}], for being a list comprehension rather than a loop, #(%) function literals, and @ deref.

Also found it easy to read even though I haven't written any Clojure in about a decade (spent a LOT of time with it when it was new).

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#34
post #31

where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from? There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use. for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc. 2. likewise I don't think it matters that much. my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

Native look&feel makes for a consistent UX across apps. Users learn one set of conventions and UI controls that uniformly applies to all applications. In addition, all applications benefit from enhancements made to the native UI toolkit and integration with the OS (input methods, file dialogs, keyboard navigation, automations, …).

Moreover, web UIs tend to be less sophisticated and less power user friendly, due to HTML/CSS and browser API limitations. This unfortunately often carries over even to non-browser-based applications that however use a web-like UI.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#35
post #31

where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from? There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use. for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc. 2. likewise I don't think it matters that much. my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

An anecdote:

I don’t care if things look native, however I am actively repulsed by modern web design trends.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#36
post #31

where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from? There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use. for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc. 2. likewise I don't think it matters that much. my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

It comes from macOS users, really. On windows nothing looks native because nobody can make sense of what native looks like in current-year. On Linux, lol. Lmao. On macOS? Your app better is native because it will stick out like a sore thumb if it isn’t and I won’t use it.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#37
post #32

The readme says it is aiming for a “web look”, with no intention to make it look — and, presumably, behave — native. As a user, that’s not what I expect and hope for from a desktop application.

Following the author for some time and his main point is that “electron” won already, even despite the fact that the author himself doesn’t like it. And he’s not wrong. Majority of desktop users probably don’t care already if it’s native look or not (don’t cite me on that). The goal of the project to provide a way creating quite performant desktop apps with a DX of Clojure. And it’s a nice goal.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#39
post #32

The readme says it is aiming for a “web look”, with no intention to make it look — and, presumably, behave — native. As a user, that’s not what I expect and hope for from a desktop application.

Following the author for some time and his main point is that “electron” won already, even despite the fact that the author himself doesn’t like it. And he’s not wrong. Majority of desktop users probably don’t care already if it’s native look or not (don’t cite me on that). The goal of the project to provide a way creating quite performant desktop apps with a DX of Clojure. And it’s a nice goal.

I can relate (I think). I mean, I don't care what the general look of the app is, even if gimmicky of what native desktop looks, as long as the design, general aesthetic, and cohesion are kept well defined, structured and organized. I do not like Electron, I hate to have "little chromes" just so I can do X and Y. I crave true native apps, even if they still look kind of web'ish.

Re: Clojure Desktop UI Framework

#40
post #34
post #31

where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from? There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use. for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc. 2. likewise I don't think it matters that much. my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

Native look&feel makes for a consistent UX across apps. Users learn one set of conventions and UI controls that uniformly applies to all applications. In addition, all applications benefit from enhancements made to the native UI toolkit and integration with the OS (input methods, file dialogs, keyboard navigation, automations, …). Moreover, web UIs tend to be less sophisticated and less power user friendly, due to HT…

There's a slightly deeper part to this which is that if I see a native UI toolkit in use, I can be at least relatively confident that the accessibility affordances I expect to be there haven't been half-arsed in some custom widget set implementation. That's part of the "one set of conventions" expectation you mention, but it's an important one. There's a lot of embedded knowledge in native widgets.
Post reply on HN