[sprash]

There are several "unopinionated" tookits out there already. Nobody uses them because it is all a matter of popularity. The most popular toolkit by far is called HTML+CSS+Javascript. You might hate it but the point of no return has been passed ages ago. So If you want to make a difference implement a browser with a trusted zone for local applications (which are allowed to occasionally call C-routines to get native speed) that is not controlled by apple or google.

[anthk]

Eh, no. QT5 is THE serious cross-platform toolkit. Everything else it's a turd deserved to be shunned. Microsoft Teams it's seen as a disaster even from die-hard MS users.

[RedShift1]

It doesn't have to be though, it's not because it's HTML+CSS+JS that it's bad, it's bad because it was poorly written. You can write poor code in any language/toolkit. You can make beautiful and fast apps with HTML+CSS+JS.

[throw10920]

You can also make safe and reliable applications in C++, or fast applications in Python, or readable code in 1990's Perl - it's just very difficult, because those languages lend themselves very poorly to those things, and that's why good developers avoid using those languages when those traits are needed.

Heck, you can make fast code in Python by embedding a DSL and writing a native-code compiler for it. Turing completeness means that everything is possible, which means that "possible" isn't interesting - practical is.

Judging by how few fast webtech applications there are, it seems like making them is not very practical.

[anthk]

>readable code in 1990's Perl - it's just very difficult, because those languages lend themselves very poorly to those things

Perl is not Forth. I know y'all know Perl because of Gold code contexts and oneliners, but look at some games written in Perl and tell me Perl is not readable.

Better, get the free books from Orelly:

https://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/index.htm

The 4th version is updated enough.

[throw10920]

Alright, maybe Forth would have been a better example for that point...