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

The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

nodesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#11

Post by FooBarWidget »

callum85 wrote: post #2

Last time I tried building a 'blank' node-webkit app for OS X (using https://github.com/Dica-Developer/generator-node-webkit ), the resulting .app came to ~100MB. Does anyone know the base size for an atom-shell app?

Seriously, does anybody nowadays care about a 100 MB desktop app? I developed my first app in 1997 with Delphi and it was only 200 KB, so from that perspective I always cringe when I see that an app I've developed is multiple MB. But in all seriousness, do users actually care? Every time I download an OS X app, it's at least 50 MB, but I find that even I don't care anymore because downloading 50 MB nowadays only takes 10 seconds, and my machine has more than enough RAM to load all the bundled libraries. We are in an age where people deploy VM images and Docker containers that are many hundred megabytes, and it seems people are happy that way.

The alternative is not making apps self-contained, but instead to make them rely on shared libraries. This is much more efficient, but apart from a few neckbeards who cry "bloat" it seems that most people care more about avoiding dependency hell and ease of use, even if that means large packages due to library duplication.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#12

Post by rrdharan »

This article doesn't accurately convey the state of Chrome Applications. There's actually a much richer way to build apps that have a more native look and feel, including their own branded top-level window with fewer of the limitations the author cites.

https://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#13

Post by bpizzi »

mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

> The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary?

Because innovation happens when you start thinking out of the box?

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#14

Post by dnissley »

depr wrote: post #7
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

Also, if you're making a desktop app you don't have to use HTML/JS, why on earth would you use those if you don't absolutely have to?

What is the alternative to building a cross-platform desktop app that isn't tied to the browser security model? Build a different app for every platform?

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#16

Post by chcokr »

bpizzi wrote: post #13
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

> The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Because innovation happens when you start thinking out of the box?

This. Plus, sure, WWW was probably meant for sharing content, but HTML/JS is a front-end standard not necessarily tied with WWW.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#17

Post by chcokr »

depr wrote: post #7
mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

Also, if you're making a desktop app you don't have to use HTML/JS, why on earth would you use those if you don't absolutely have to?

Also, one might simply outperform him/herself in HTML/JS than in other languages. Can't blame that...

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#18

Post by pavlov »

zzzcpan wrote: post #15

Related question: what are the other ways to build a desktop application on Linux that works on Linux, Windows and OSX on slow machines, like intel atom, and doesn't require anything from the user?

Qt is great for this. It's used by lots of desktop applications, from small open source tools to large commercial content creation apps like Maya.

http://qt-project.org/

It does have a substantial learning curve. The traditional desktop stuff is all C++. The new mobile stuff is easier to develop, with a nice declarative UI system and JavaScript, but it's not applicable if you want native-feeling desktop widgets.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#19

Post by api »

dnissley wrote: post #14
depr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if you're making a desktop app you don't have to use HTML/JS, why on earth would you use those if you don't absolutely have to?

What is the alternative to building a cross-platform desktop app that isn't tied to the browser security model? Build a different app for every platform?

Qt and Java.

Re: The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

#20

Post by jekrb »

mid-kid wrote: post #4

The web wasn't made to be used as a desktop app replacement, and it will never be. Quit trying to make it that way, and start using a widget toolkit like you should. Hell, if you love html/js so much, there's a big chance you won't dislike QML. The web is for sharing content, not for games, text editors, and all that stuff. I see google trying to blur the lines between that, but why is it necessary? Just because peop…

|slow, shitty "web apps"

Ah yes, nothing is better than waiting 5 minutes for the native Facebook iPhone app to boot up. But seriously, I've mostly switched from facebook to ello just because ello as a web app is faster than facebook as a mobile app.

Not all web apps are slow and not all native apps are fast. It's up to the developers to handle that, not the platform.

I see a lot of benefits of building and using web apps over native ones.

As a developer I can really focus on using the browser as my runtime. Meaning my app will, for the most part, run on most devices. It's also easier to maintain. If I need push a patch or update, I just edit some javascript.

As a user, I know that when I switch from device to device I won't need to go through an install process. All I need is a url.

Why can't the web be for games or text editors? Some of the most useful text editors I've used are on the web. What about WebRTC? Should we still all be using the Skype desktop app instead?

I would probably say that it's lazier not to make your app work well on the web.

Post reply on HN