[jansommer]

Please suggest a cross platform framework that doesn't come with accessibility issues, that also allows you to create as rich ui's like what you can do in a browser, and without various licenses that restrict what you can do with your code? Something that supports Android, iOS, Linux, Windows and MacOS.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I feel that it's cheating here to include android and ios in this list, since so much stuff that is developed either:

  * is only for those two (and sometimes only one of those) platforms

  * the preferred "version" on those platforms in an app, rather than web-based 

It's clear from the scope of the mobile app market that there's a huge marketplace for a kind of application that essentially never existed on desktops. It seems a little bold to insist that the same x-platform toolkit must service mobile and desktop contexts, when so much is different between them, in particular display size and interaction style. Even more so when the evidence seems to be that not even the web has really managed to do this.

[JasonCannon]

And yet HTML+CSS+JS which is so hated for making applications handles the use case of working across mobile and desktop almost perfectly. Maybe it's not just because we don't want to learn real programming like the grandparent post insinuated and instead a perfectly viable solution to the problem at hand.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

If it is handled so perfectly by web tech, why do mobile apps exist?

[ttybird]

Easier to track you.

[ttybird]

You are probably looking for Qt.

[jansommer]

Doesn't fit the part about licenses that restrict what you can do with your code:

"Qt for Application Development is dual-licensed under commercial and open source licenses. The commercial Qt license gives you the full rights to create and distribute software on your own terms without any open source license obligations." https://www.qt.io/licensing/

[ttybird]

One of the "open source" licenses that it is under is LGPL, you can do whatever you want with your code. (Although this does not mean that you should, please avoid publishing closed source software)

[jansommer]

It's not a bad suggestion, but it still doesn't satisfy the requirement. You can't put it all in a single executable if that is what you want

[ttybird]

You can, as long as you give the user the ability to replace the library. Such as by providing .o files.