[goatlover]

But is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer?

Obviously there is the advantage of the web platform to leverage with JS frameworks, but there was something really nice about being able to drag and drop standard controls that all users were familiar with, and then just attach some code to them that talked to a database or whatever. I think that was the Parent's point that modern web development, while having the advantages of the web, is still more complicated than what was popular a decade or two ago for making UIs.

[k__]

"is React simpler for building UIs than the RAD tooling of Visual Basic, Delphi or the Flash Designer"

I asked something like this too, but the other way around.

"If Flash, Delphi, etc. were so good, where are they now?"

The answers were: These tools were good for one developer or small teams, but textual dev tools scaled better to big teams.

[int_19h]

Delphi is "textual" as well - the designer works with text files (*.dfm) that describe the component tree. Very similar to JSON, but with more Pascal-like syntax. People mostly used the designer because it was easier - but then again, in that era, it was also common for people to use e.g. Dreamweaver to write HTML.

[k__]

Maybe, getting into development got easier?

I mean, while these graphical tools certainly help, you have to learn them. I learned things like Photoshop, Sketch, Ableton Live, Final Cut Pro, Eclipse, etc. pp. and I can tell that it's a huge time investment to get up and running.

Maybe coding is that much easier, that people invest their time into this instead of a UI builder?

Maybe people got burned by Flash and now want to invest into somthing that lasts longer?

[int_19h]

GUI designers of the RAD era were much easier than Photoshop or Flash, and certainly easier than writing it out by hand. That's precisely why they became so popular.

[k__]

But why didn't they stay popular?

Did the Flash disaster cast fear into people?

Did Web-tech based systems perform so much better, business wise, than native desktop apps?

[int_19h]

The most popular frameworks with the best tooling weren't cross-platform. VB, Delphi, .NET/WinForms (and later WPF) were all Windows-only. Delphi briefly played with Kylix, but it was very messy.

Then you had Qt, which is a very Delphi-like take on GUI in C++, and was cross-platform - but it didn't have the integrated tooling on par with the other stuff, and of course the language being C++ raised the learning bar significantly.

Qt is much better these days, thanks to Qt Creator - although C++ is still a stumbling block there. But in the meantime, web apps took over - and that was before stuff like React. I don't think that had anything to do with ease of development, but rather with ease of deployment (or rather lack of it) - it's much easier to get people to use your app right there in the browser than it is to have them download and install it. So web won not because of its technical superiority, but despite it - and then dragged the desktop down (Electron etc) as a result.

[FpUser]

Delphi and it's opensource cousin Lazarus/Freepascal are doing just fine and I use those to implement desktop applications. Single exe with no dependencies. Beauty. Sure they're not popular in North America but I could care less. Those tools save me a boatload of time. There is also QT.

"The answers were: These tools were good for one developer or small teams, but textual dev tools scaled better to big teams."

Utter nonsense. They scale just fine. Whoever gave the answer seem to not know what he/she is talking about.

[k__]

How big is your team?

[FpUser]

Wrong approach. The claim was made that Delphi does not scale for big teams. Name me one single Delphi related (mis)-feature that prevents it to scale.

[k__]

I don't use it, so I can't tell.

Checking if the users are all small teams would at least imply that this could be true.