[tracker1]

Qt, open-source only or expensive licensing. C++ only bindings... wouldn't call it "easy to use"

FLTK, no accessibility features

WxWidgets, really limited theming, not even close to html+css. Cross platform compatibility is hit and miss, usually requiring a lot of one-off platform corrections.

Also, as I said, you don't need to ship the entire browser... not once, but twice... try reading slower.

[CyberDildonics]

Qt, open-source only or expensive licensing

It's LGPL, lots of programs use it like qTorrent, VLC and much more. You can make up criticisms but it has been a backbone of GUIs for decades.

FLTK, no accessibility features

What exactly do you need and do you need it for every GUI you make? If you want a web page, use a web page.

WxWidgets, really limited theming,

Suddenly theming is your deal breaker.

not even close to html+css

Thankfully, because that is often not a good way to make a GUI.

as I said, you don't need to ship the entire browser...

No, you said "it doesn't need to use a local web server either." Also 'entire web browser or not' electron programs end up being hundreds of megabytes for a simple window use hundreds of megabytes of RAM.

The bottom line here is not that electron is necessary. It is that you want to use javascript even though your users will hate it.

[mwcampbell]

> What exactly do you need and do you need it for every GUI you make?

A GUI toolkit that has no support for screen readers, or other assistive technologies that require accessibility APIs, should be a non-starter for most applications IMO. We need more options that meet that criterion without going all the way to a web page.

[tracker1]

From my original comment, "cross-platform UI toolkit that is easy to use, has all the accessibility features of the browser built in, and has a UI control toolkit as rich as say mui.com ... Support SVG as well as stylized layout similar to html+css"

So, you've failed to meet the requirements from the start.

I've also said, many times now, that you can use browser tech without an entire browser and the answer doesn't need to be electron.

[CyberDildonics]

How is electron better than a web page for accessibility?

[tracker1]

Browsers/Electron has great accessibility in the box.

[CyberDildonics]

What does that mean and how does that answer the question? How is electron better than using a local webserver and web page for accessibility?

[tracker1]

Well, I've specifically stated more than once, you don't need to use Electron specifically. The advantage Electron does provide is relative isolation from your installed browser (which are generally well sandboxed anyhow). The only other significant advantage is they are easier to jail/isolate for use with the likes of appImage, Snap and Flatpak/Flathub. So you can target multiple Linux platforms with a single build process, without dependency hell or getting stuck on older repository releases. Electron also offers a consistent option for your application's packaging and updates along with a consistent browser surface, where a separately packaged application that uses the system's browser will be indeterminant in terms of potential render issues and bugs.

Again, not that I'm advocating for Electron specifically, and haven't been. I've specifically mentioned Tauri and others as alternatives that use the system's browser engine, which you have repeatedly ignored.

[tracker1]

Sorry, accidentally replied under the wrong post below.

[Narishma]

Qt has been LGPL for ages. You can use it for free just fine in proprietary apps, as long as you don't modify Qt itself.

[tracker1]

Sorry, I had forgotten.