|
|
|
|
|
by ZenoArrow
3854 days ago
|
|
> "Platform integration is impossible, which means there is no way for the framework, for example, to create widgets differently on OS X, Windows or Linux (these platforms have many different conventions)" So web apps can't have reusable components now? > "And having access to all the latest JS additions! ... that were copied from other languages you could develop desktop apps in, because JS is a terrible hack." WebAssembly will take over for web apps eventually. > "decades of UX knowledge thrown out of the window" UX knowledge isn't toolkit dependent, UX knowledge is just as applicable on the web. You can make a dog of an app with any toolkit, native toolkits offer no guarantees for good UX, you can only hope that designers choose to follow best practices. |
|
I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they don't. You go ahead and try to fix that, create widget#772981 that still won't support typed-selection, or will break with large text or what not... I've seen too many of those, most of them bad, and none of them standard. So far, React is the only thing that even comes close to a sane model for a contender to UI development on the desktop, and it still mostly fails the accessibility checkbox.
> WebAssembly will take over for web apps eventually.
More eventualism. Do you have evidence for that? Do you even have evidence that it'll be better than what we have now in other languages if it does take over?
> UX knowledge isn't toolkit dependent
A lot of it is. You'd be surprised just how much UX is crammed into Qt Widgets for example. Years of experience making them more accessible, more usable, more consistent with the platform they're running on, etc.