[bayesian_horse]

It's way easier to develop and customize a user interface with the building blocks found in a browser, rather than doing the same with Gtk or QT. To the extent that those have gotten easier, they are emulating html+js+css.

[lapser]

I don't know about Qt but at least GTK's docs are terribly bad. Even more so when you want to develop using a language that isn't C.

[alxlaz]

I'm not sure how they've kept up, as I haven't used Qt in some time, but back in the 4.x days the documentation was absolutely stellar. Extremely thorough and almost every non-trivial feature came with code samples. I couldn't for the life of me understand why anyone was using GTK at the time.

[bayesian_horse]

My point is not about lack of usability or documentation. Rather that the nature of HTML+CSS+JS lets you do things you can't do as easily in either GTK or QT. In the latter, yes you can easily achieve a certain kind of UI, but not deviate from it, and even formatting/displaying a significant amount of information that doesn't fit into one of the classic widgets can be a bit of a pain.

[alxlaz]

That depends a lot on what you're used to. It takes me far less time to implement a custom widget that can format/display a significant amount of information that doesn't fit into one of the classic widgets than it takes me to fiddle with CSS to get it to center things correctly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

[ensiferum]

Qt also has QML which allows you to do things similar to what you would have with the combination of HTML,CSS and JS

[kaba0]

Have you tried creating a custom date picker in those? I am fairly sure web tech would come out last with the infinite amount of divs here and there.

[skeletal88]

Qt docs are excellent, one of the best I have used. They have high level overviews, examples and everything you ever want