Qt for WebAssembly Technology Preview

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 8:29 AM UTC

Xuper wrote: post #115

k__ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't it more like: most people know JS so everything (server, mobile/desktpp apps, etc) was made with it. And not like: JS is so shitty, better we make everything with it, even if there are better alternatives. ?

It was the latter I am afraid. Then the general hype started and now we have insanity like Electron etc. Don't worry web assembly is here to help JS, not to replace it ;-).

Post by roryisok » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 8:44 AM UTC

keyle wrote: post #15

This reminds me of a time, when I used to work for a very large company. After an unfortunate amount of meetings and powerpoint presentations about ubiquity and compatibility, we ended up putting a Flash VM inside a Java client, to read HTML. Oh boy, sometimes you just walk away from a crash, but you're never the same.

Post by mherrmann » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 9:05 AM UTC

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #52

freedomben wrote: post #38

Really surprised and saddened by the negative comments here. Qt is an amazing framework that has been around for nearly 30 years. Developing with it is a great experience, probably the most enjoyable coding I've done. I have faith that the Qt project won't spend time shipping this if it doesn't offer advantages. Give them time, and a little benefit of the doubt based on a very long history of excellence.

I'm not sure I buy that, are you saying that the only reason that Qt hasn't completely taken over writing native software on (even desktop! not to mention mobile where Qt also works), is a marketing problem? I would argue that Qt's problem is: * Licensing is expensive (look it up, you can't just use it for free for large-scale commercial projects, contrary to what many people believe) * Getting started with Qt is pai…

Post by littlestymaar » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 9:44 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #103

ori_b wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is perfectly relevant criticism. Browsers are a huge amount of overhead to add to a cross platform toolkit, for virtually no benefit. Distributing full fledged programs like this via browsers is simply going to be a shit user experience, on top of the already terrible user experience that browsers give.

> virtually no benefit. > Distributing full fledged programs like this via browsers is simply going to be a shit user experience These statements are simply FUD. Single click "installation" with no dependency management to virtually every platform out there at near-native speed is a huge benefit. And browsers are already capable of installing desktop menu entries and icons, and running frameless in a way that looks n…

Post by pcwalton » Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 9:51 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #114

pcwalton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a whole lot of native apps I just won't use because I don't want to go through the hassle of installing software. The macOS App Store is bad; Windows installers are worse. Entering a URL is a lot less friction. I don't think the user experience of Web apps has to be worse than native, but even if we grant that it's worse, I'll take it over the pain of installing apps. And, based on the experiences of numero…

Those SaaS are more than happy to have a Web wall to their products. No more piracy, users only get access to the UI part. They care use whatever they want from open source, without giving anything back and the world will only find out about license misuse if they employees speak out. Best of all, they own their user's data, making it even harder to move away from them, than it ever was with Office formats.