61–70 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really going to have to ask for an example of this. Other than SWT I've not seen it done well.
Office, Photoshop.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPvhzDqZlaAC&pg=PA174&lp... (Spolsky)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Office, Photoshop.
Office isn't a good example: it used to be the case (may have changed) that WinWord and MacWord were entirely separate codebases. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vPvhzDqZlaAC&pg=PA174&lp... (Spolsky)
See the Office related talks at CppCon 2015 about how to write portable code using what Microsoft calls the hamburger model, as part of their migration to a common codebase.
Basic a shim layer for low level OS APIs, the middle layer with the majority of code and another shim layer for UI APIs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you think we used to create portable software across 8 bit and 16 bit platforms? Most of it actually written in Assembly.
Code is a different beast than UI. Magnitudes easier to shim and support multiple architectures.
It is all about design a good application architecture from the get go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a developers dream if that developer loathes Javascript, like I do. Even Typescript just feels like lipstick on a pig.
And many developers loathe C++. Why should I have to use such a low level and antiquated language for developing a GUI? Nowadays you don't even have to use JS/TS, there are many languages that target JS and have decent bindings to its ecosystem, such as Scala, Purescript, Clojure. This doesn't seem to be the case with Qt which lacks decent bindings to languages other than Python.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Code is a different beast than UI. Magnitudes easier to shim and support multiple architectures.
Still doable when user experience is more valuable then developer convinience. It is all about design a good application architecture from the get go.
I've an idea. Let's write GUI apps using GUI libraries, like everyone used to, instead of writing them for a web browser. Not only will this be more secure, it'll also be 10s or 100s of times more performant.
Cross-platform GUI development has always been fraught, though. I don't blame people for picking an existing, working (mostly) technology that guarantees (mostly) identical results across lots of platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really going to have to ask for an example of this. Other than SWT I've not seen it done well.
Office, Photoshop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
welcome to the history loop! it is a very known fact for all unix grey beards (insert more inclusive analogy if you can think any) that containers and fat binaries lead to way more code rot than anything else. and consequently more bugs and security bugs. I blame this fad coming back on apple. linux and even Microsoft were happy with shared libraries, until osx adopted the bait and switch tactics of Microsoft and got…
> a very known fact for all unix grey beards The co-inventor of Unix, Ken Thompson, and the Unix team engineer and author of The Unix Programming Environment, Rob Pike, are both big advocates of static linking. They designed Go and made a big point of emphasising static linking. Pike: "Shared libraries are obviously a good idea until you've actually used them. Whether it's obvious or not that they're a bad idea is mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about “not using a bazooka to kill a mosquito”? There's no reason why a text editor needs a frigging browser engine as a core component.
Apparently there's a reason because VS Code (and Atom) is way more useful than any other editor built over last few decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a developers dream if that developer loathes Javascript, like I do. Even Typescript just feels like lipstick on a pig.
Sure, you can hate a programming language. It changes absolutely nothing, except your potential revenue streams. It's like saying "I loathe Linux!!" and knowing nothing about it; sure, but in this industry, you're going to have a tough time :)