71–74 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because NodeJS is popular and desktop apps were getting small and efficient so we crammed a 30MB Chrome runtime in there.
We also almost managed to let blind and other impaired people use their computers via OS-level accessibility settings and features so now we need to throw all that away :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This! I don't particularly care what technology people use to write apps, so long as it works well . As others in this thread have said, you can immediately spot a web-app-pretending-to-be-native because it doesn't work well . QML appears to offer the best of both worlds - I don't understand why it isn't more popular?
Qt's C++ heritage, I'd assume. That, and I really didn't like Qt Creator, when I last tried to play with it a few years ago. In addition, "package management" for libraries as per `npm` and it's ilk is a non-starter, though I believe there was something on HN attempting to fix that for Qt recently.
I think what you've got here for an OS X implementation is pretty good, but I can still tell that it isn't really native, and if an OS update changes anything in regard to the standard UI components forget about it.
Why not design and develop your own UI? That way you can control how it is supposed to work given the drawbacks and advantages of web technologies and not have to ask the user for forgiveness of minor quirks in your reimplementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's the point of React - providing an abstraction layer over the poor decisions that were made in creating the web. Apart from Javascript, of course. But that particular "bad decision" is getting modified with every version into something more acceptable ("now with classes!"). I guess the endpoint is that React + Javascript (+ Redux) becomes the defacto language for developing UIs in, and what implements that…
> But that particular "bad decision" is getting modified with every version into something more acceptable True, but it definitely seems like they're only fixing the low-hanging fruit. They're never going to fix the insane type system.
I like that there's "==" and "===", because that's exactly how I think. It fits my use case of "is this the same value as that?" or "is this really equal to that?" exactly.
I like that types are fluid, flexible and never get in my way.
But there's a religious war here that I think got won by the static type side, so I'm not going there again ;)