Apple Developer Center still down

Although having looked at hopper, I must say I'm not convinced it seems any more native than a Qt app on OS X could look if work was concentrated with this goal in mind. So as I said in my VirtualBox comment, I think that while indeed it is a Qt deficiency that apps don't look native straight from the compiler, more work could be done by the developer to make it more native-like.

I've seen controls acting weirdly but only QPushButtons - that seems to be regarding the hit-test area - we've had to sub-class a lot of them on OS X to fix this by making the hit test area bigger which is annoying. There's also a pretty bad spacing/padding/layout issue as I alluded to in another comment.

I agree with the event stuff as well - definitely one of the biggest things which affects us is that sometimes mouse/keyboard events don't get sent to the app if the app isn't active or the mouse isn't over a particular window. Debugging through Qt, it seems that Qt never gets the event from the OS, so we have to install event filters for all windows and intercept them which is crap. We've also seen weird stuff like key release events being received before key down events - again debugging through Qt, it looks like an OS X issue in that that's the order they come in from the OS, but again, without a native version to compare to, it's difficult to tell or test.

Generally the crashing of our apps is due to graphics drivers or memory allocation issues (we deal with huge amounts of memory), and I'm not aware of Qt itself being the result of any crashes on OS X for our apps any more than other platforms, but I guess without a native version to compare to, it's difficult to say - but Qt is very rarely the cause of crashes in my experience and I generally develop for Linux and OS X.

I remember a lot of discussions a year or two ago when marco was very vocal about the reasons he didn't have comments on his blog, and would prefer to have all of these on HN for e.g.

slowdown's comment goes the other way round, on why HN should care about commenting on marco's blog. There is another thread [1] with 138 comments and more quality opinions and speculations than anyone should need, Marco's speculations are also represented in the top comments. Agree or not with he's stance, it's a valid point IMO.

I think it's fun to see this kind of reaction on why some contents should be commented or not, and the motivations to push a site or another.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6071233

But there are other instances where the store will go down outside of those periods. Sometimes it's for maintenance, but more often than not a new or updated product appears (e.g. a product line gets a speed bump across the board).

Different UI toolkits make doing certain things hard, certain things easy, and some things damn near impossible without large effort on the part of the developer.

So when the parent commenter says "Nobody on OS X wants a Qt app", I'd argue that yes, although you can make a "well designed QT app", it's much harder to make a "well designed OS X app" with QT.

Why will it be less likely to be a well designed OS X app? Because it will be different to a Cocoa app made with interface builder, in subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways. Sure you can code around these and make adjustments, but the level of effort and investment to get to the stage of if you'd just built it with a more suited tool for the job (Cocoa / Interface Builder on OS X) is quite high.

This is why there is some truth the the admittedly generalised statement made above that "Nobody on OS X wants a Qt app".

I haven't used SSI before, but after researching various technologies, it looks like a solution for my own caching use-case, and I am planning on implementing it. I realize that it's a rather old technology, but as long as there's nothing wrong with it, I think it could work for me.

Is there something wrong with it? The only thing that I have seen is that the "exec" command is dangerous, but NGINX doesn't seem to implement it.