You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like the best option at the moment is egui. It’s native. Works on the web too. Very easy to get up and running. The things I don’t like about it:
- I personally think the default style could do with improvement. Mainly it’s way too cramped. There’s a happy middle ground between no padding and bootstrap. I mean Win32/Qt/etc. got this basically right.
- Immediate mode. Yeah it’s easier, especially with Rust, but … it’s surely not how it’s supposed to work.
- The low level drawing API (like if you’re making custom widgets) is surprisingly amateur. Not something I’d want to target if I’m spending a lot of time e.g. writing a custom map widget or git graph or something.
I also tried Slint. Like the author I think the license is pretty reasonable. But it is pretty involved to set up a project and since it compiles everything from source it can take a very long time for a clean build of hello world. It’s like if you were using Qt but instead of a binary package the sources are just included in your app.
Also I have bad experiences from QML (Javascript 🤮, weird scoping rules, etc.) but hopefully they learnt from their experience.
Looking forward to the 2030 edition anyway!
I really hope iced.rs gets better on accessibility, because i really enjoyed trying it :)
Interesting read though it’s mostly a comparison on how well windows accessibility tools work on each gui framework.
Good.
Too many libraries/frameworks/products don’t factor in accessibility from the start.
Along the same vein, too many open source projects don’t factor in non-“gnu/linux” environments from the start.
It’s a lot harder to tack on after the fact rather than just having it be a part of the base design from the beginning.
Making these front and centre in a survey should be a be a bit of a wakeup for people who don’t consider what doesn’t run on their machines.
🤡 uses windows 🤡
I thought you were joking, but this dude seriously uses windows for development. No wonder he’s running into so many issues. I can’t imagine a big chunk of rust developers using that terrible OS.
Edit: I’m surprised at the number of things he tried though and how many worked.
It’s a GUI framework evaluation. I would imagine most users of a desktop application with a GUI would be Windows users. It would generally be a little weird to develop a professional product that does not work on Windows (or at least Mac). It’s a lot easier to develop that natively than to cross-compile.
There’s a difference between a framework that builds to an exe and one that can develop in windows
I’ll be honest, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, but it sounds like cross-compilation to me? The article mentions several different GUI libraries that require dynamic linking and complicated build scripts, so even if you setup rustc to cross-compile (which isn’t that hard but is an extra unnecessary step for your run-of-the-mill dev who just wants to get paid), getting the build scripts to cross-compile C++ libraries or testing the cross-compiled binaries with dynamically linked libraries is a pain, assuming your build scripts even let you do that.
All of this is avoidable by building from Windows. Or I guess you can not target Windows. That works too, but most businesses won’t see that as an option.
