[feikname]

One of my favorite offline "classic" programs of all time is.. Microsoft WordPad.

It's by no means great, but it's so lightweight and gets off your way that it puts modern online Microsoft Word and Google Dpcs to shame with its mere 16MB memory usage for simple documents.

I wish more apps did that, even if they looked like a Windows app inside macOS or vice-versa

I wonder if releasing a new framework that doesnt try to look native but still tries to make flow for each OS optmized (e.g. allows to choose file picker between native and own) would be a resonable alternative to electron. Perhaps even with JS support so the gazilliins libraries out there arent totally lost.

[anigbrowl]

Oh I love it. I use Libreoffice for Calc which is good-enough and still open source, but Write is a horrible word processing experience. For text alone it's just aesthetically dissatisfying but as soona s you need to include pictures it's an active barrier to productivity. More than once I've spent hours fuming over a Write document with a looming deadline, then thrown it away and started from scratch in Wordpad and finished with time to spare.

[dfox]

I somewhat suspect that WordPad is the only MS application that actually follows all the MS recommendations about usage of Win32 API and Windows HIG/UX.

[happyweasel]

It's written in MFC, and the sourcecode is on github (https://github.com/microsoft/VCSamples/tree/master/VC2010Sam...)

[pjmlp]

Going a bit on the side track over here, due to MFC being mentioned.

Given the current state of C++/WinRT tooling, even the aging MFC is more productive for Windows applications.

It doesn't matter it isn't modern C++, is full of CWhaterver, it is still more than good enough for those use cases where .NET isn't an option for whatever reason and C++ must be used.

[homarp]

"The WordPad sample demonstrates how to implement an application that imitates the functionality of WordPad, including the user interface elements and some of the capabilities." per the readme

[happyweasel]

Ah! thanks for clarifying