The world is asking for more and more software, and the resources to provide it are not following so people are taking shortcuts.
Want something better ? Someone has to pay for it.
For macOS desktop applications are written with Objective C, which is C with fast message-passing, and doesn't trade much to speed. Swift is modern alternative, but it doesn't trade anything for speed either.
For Linux applications are traditionally written with C and Gtk or with C++ and Qt. Those options are both very performant.
For Windows main language for a long time was C++ and it remains supported language. There's movement to .NET, so Windows is an outlier here. But .NET is generally very performant language, it makes some tradeoffs for safety, but it has enough features to stay fast and its implementation is specifically tuned for desktop applications.
The only terrible platform with slow language is Android and it's well known for its lags.
There's very little desktop software written with Java and Python and usually those are specialized applications, when users don't really care about experience, but rather care about functionality.
So JavaScript invasion here is unexpected and not wanted. I won't use any JavaScript desktop application, if I have choice. I don't like this technology. JavaScript and V8 made for browser with advanced sandbox capabilities. That's fine. But for desktop it's just not needed. And there's no other advantages. UI is terrible and does not conform to any standards. Performance is not good. Memory consumption is abysmal. Energy consumption is abysmal as well.
If I'm about to buy application for macOS, I'm always carefully inspecting its bundle and trying to determine which technologies were used. Unless it's pure Objective C/Swift, I'm usually won't buy it. I hope, more users would do it.
That's true now. It wasn't true then. The point still stands.
Although to be fair I haven't really tried PyQT out still, but I don't like the idea of having to buy a commercial license for it.
Or anything in any other language.
But none of them are close enough to the benefit of being able to use the tone of experience from the Web UI into the desktop.
Eventually all GUI app toolkit ends up with a custom MVC framework, a client/server architecture, some kind of db for persistence, their own implementation of asynchronous event and communication models and a declarative layer to create the UI without code. For the most advanced this layer separate structure and layout.
Well guess what, this is what the Web has natively being doing for ever.
Since the web is now the most popular platform, with millions of libs and tutorials on it, people just reused that. It just makes sense.
The problem is not the concept. The problem is we should have driven this effort with a standard to sanely close the gap between the desktop and the web so that you don't have to spawn a freaking browser-engine-os for every one of your app.
But no, the web is the only platform with a standard. And it flourished while all the big players created closes gardens with proprietary shitty API. And this is the result.
Have you not seen Jurassic Park for god sake ? Life finds a way.
It's too bad it wasn't more universally adopted, by any of the 3 major platforms (including Linux, where the all-C Gtk+ has become the standard for the most part). Instead, it seems to have found its greatest success in, ironically, small embedded devices. Devices like this simply cannot take the performance hit of something like Electron.
I admit that for someone from the web electron is a godsend, but to be honest, responsiveness of the applications leave something to be desired
Web UI is a gazillion shades of shit, please don't dump that rubbish on the desktop. Thank you.
Seriously, how can one take Web UIs, the most cumbersome, unreliable, inconsistent, unreactive UIs, as examples to be followed? That's beyond me.
PyQt is literally the best cross-platform desktop GUI going, in any language.
Shrug, I found it much nicer than anything else I'd used, but I've never used WPF (which is single-platform in any case).
> And it was proprietary and it needed a licence.
Neither Qt nor PyQt is proprietary in the usal sense of the word (nor were they 5-6 years ago). If you're using a non-standard definition it would probably be more productive to use a different word.
> For sure it's not for me given that I find python a pretty average language with the huge handicap of duck typing (and before someone starts, yes, I'm aware of the 'type annotations')
I'm a huge fan of type systems. I wish I could find a UI framework that's anywhere near as nice as PyQt for an ML-family language.
It's this platform on top of a platform that is objectionable from a performance, memory, storage, and integration perspective.
Languages have evolve to change the way we handle constraints like memory, speed, readability, expressivity etc.
We are arriving at the pick of what languages can bring on the table. Sure we can improve things here and there, but the huge challenges now are integration, packaging, distribution, updates, communications, multi-tiers architectures and all that.
So we now tweak platforms to help us with that.
But because we didn't see that coming, it's not done in any structured way. It's done exactly the way we did everything since the beginning of computing, by stitching together stuff then hitting hard on it with a hammer until the job is done.
This is not new. IT is a joke of an engineering field. We hack everything, don't think about the future, and then end up using the status quote. It's always has been like that.
They are an abstraction over OS level isolation.
Yeah, but until Electron and they like, we seldom shipped desktop apps in anything than C, C++, Delphi etc even after all those decades. Which are all as close to the metal as can be. And in fact C/C++ can be as fast, or even faster than hand-rolled assembly most of the time (with few exception), so the whole premise is moot.
The few Java desktop apps that were around, people used to hate as memory hogs.
But the thing is, even when I write something for myself, I first write a command line app, then a web service. Never a GUI, because it's such pain.
Gets me the high-level, Smalltalk-ish productivity when I want it (most of the time) and the low-level C efficiency when I need it (sometimes).
Having my cake and eating it, that's me :-)
Quality of the tech is NOT the drive for success here. You are missing the point.
Well, maybe it's better to miss the point, than to succeed by selling crap to people who deserve better?
When are technies gonna stand up for quality of tech?
When the user notices a quality difference?
You can see everyday that people favor cheapness, easiness and convenience over quality. You would not have so much junk food otherwise.
What I'm saying is "it shouldn't matter" what people favor.
Professionals should still favor quality, even if their customers would just as well have crap (or are ok with crap when its all they can find).
One of my first commercial projects was a web-content management system written in Objective-C. Customers included Siemens and the German Bundestag.
Another couple of projects were written in WebObjects. If I wanted to, I could use Cappuccino, but I am not a big fan of web//client apps, so I don't.
> Can you make it portable to other OS ?
This product ran on: Solaris, AIX, NeXTStep, Linux, OS X. I think we also had a Windows port.
> Can you reuse 20 years of knowledge, resources and libs ?
In the sense you meant it: yes. Except it's more like 30 years. However, programming skills are (or should be) transportable. With virtually no previous experience, I became lead/architect on a Java project, which succeeded beyond anyone's imagination.
> Can you hire tomorrow 10 experts to help you on it ?
Is this a serious question?
>One of my first commercial projects was a web-content management system written in Objective-C
You certainly didn't use any of your cocoa widget for the UI there. It was HTML + CSS.
> This product ran on: Solaris, AIX, NeXTStep, Linux, OS X. I think we also had a Windows port.
Yeah, GNU steps for GUI on windows... This is what you think could be an argument for electron users ?
> In the sense you meant it: yes. Except it's more like 30 years.
Again bad faith. The world has way, way more code, snippets, tutorials and doc about any HTML + CSS + JS code than any tech based on Objective-C.
Programming knowledge is transferrable, but the knowledge of the ecosystem is not, and is always the most consumming.
> Is this a serious question?
Oh yes, it is. Because you see we are living an era where it's hard to find any good programmer at all for anything. They are all taken, and are very expensive.
So basically, on a tech limited to one ecosystem, finding them will be even harder, and even more expensive.
The simple fact that you are pretending it's no big deal (while any company will tell you otherwise, so much that the GAFAs are spending millions just in their recruitment process) illustrate how much a troll you are.
It most certainly is not. You just don't know what you're talking about and keep making up new stuff when confronted with actual facts that contradict your fervently held beliefs.
It's not like Smalltalk is a bad language that just happened to have a productive live programming environment.
It's one of the best languages out there, and conceptually stands alongside Lisp et al.
No, it really hasn't. It was just the way Microsoft proposed businesses to write bloated internal enterprise apps, what they used to use VB for.
Those are not the same as desktop apps -- and no, or very very few, desktop apps, ever turned to C#. Not even MS own apps, like Office, and surely nothing like Abobe's or countless others.
>It is no more "closer to the metal" than JavaScript.
Actually it very much is: it is statically typed, it has scalar types and contiguous memory allocation that allow for much better speeds (hence the effort to add some of those things asm.js and the like for Javascript), and it even has AOT compilation.
Besides, it's not JS itself that's the problem (though it took millions and top notch teams to make it fast): it's the web stack on top of it. C# just runs on a thin CLR VM layer -- and the graphics are native.
I mean, if you're going to say Windows Forms and WPF apps are not "desktop apps" then you're going to have to do a lot more than just declare that they aren't.
> Actually it very much is: it is statically typed, it has scalar types and contiguous memory allocation that allow for much better speeds (hence the effort to add some of those things asm.js and the like for Javascript), and it even has AOT compilation.
You're just listing ways that they are different. They both run in a virtual machine that abstracts away the actual machine. You know, the metal in the phrase "close to the metal."
Windows Forms is a wrapper on top of MS Win32 API. And WPF is also based on native widgets wrapped (with some extended with managed code).
In any case, C# apps are not much represented in the majority of Windows desktop apps, most of which are written in C++ or similar, and surely all the succesful ones. Can you name your succesful C# desktop apps? (not in-house enterprise apps and no developer tools please. There where the users have no choice, even Java does well) I'll name the succesful C++/Delphi/native/etc ones and we can compare our lists.
>You're just listing ways that they are different. They both run in a virtual machine that abstracts away the actual machine. You know, the metal in the phrase "close to the metal."
A call to a native drawing lib that doesn't pass through 10 layers of abstractions and bizarro architectures is as good as a direct native call. Especially from something like C# that runs circles around JS performance.
But even so, few consider JS to be what makes e.g. Electron slow.
> Yeah, but until Electron and they like, we seldom shipped desktop apps in anything than C, C++, Delphi etc even after all those decades.
So things aren't any different than before. We've just replaced non C/C++ abstractions that were written by the platform-owner company to non C/C++ abstractions that are written by open source projects.
This seems pretty much in line with the general industry trend towards the adoption of open-source software.
This statement doesn't even parse.
Became one of my favorite toys. I'd still use it for GUI prototyping if it was FOSS and kept getting extended. I found even lay people could learn it well enough to get stuff done. Long after, I learned what horrible things lay people did with it. Yet, they got work done and got paid without the IT budget and staff they would've preferred. (shrugs)
This is generally true, but to be fair the reason is because we design CPUs differently these days. Modern CPUs use instruction sets that are specifically designed to work well with compilers, and aren't meant to be programmed in hand-coded assembly except for a few critical bits deep within OS code. Older CPUs weren't like this.
It still might be possible to write hand-rolled assembly that beats modern compilers, but you probably need to have seriously super-human mental abilities to do it.
You got the causality wrong. Assembly programmer-friendly CPUs died because CPUs which weren't as friendly were faster and cheaper; those same CPUs were instead more amenable as compiler targets.
It does have a steep learning curve, but it's worth it. The number of concurrency bugs alone that I could have avoided if I had been able to use Rust years ago are sad to think about. Java has great concurrency tools, but doesn't do anything to make sure that your not shooting yourself in the foot.
Everyone who adopted python 2 on sizeable codebase is likely stuck there forever, with zero annotations and none of the new tools available, and they'll never be ported back.
But let's be fair, type related tooling in Python are not close to the ones you have in Java yet. It's just that eventually, everything comes around. Java got faster. C++ easier. Python ...toolier ? Etc.
Python broke all retro compatibility and put all existing sizeable software in a miserable deprecated state with the breaking of python 3.
I don't recall C++ getting easier. The few tools and IDE still fail at decent refactoring and code completion. The C++11 movement is adding few stuff more or less useful, piling on top of the vast amount of already existing complexity.
Your list of 7 JVM languages (both here and in your earlier comment on this submission) seems to be from most widely used to least. Yet in your HN comment from 2 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14068664 you ordered that list differently, i.e. "Java, Scala, Clojure, Groovy, Kotlin, Ceylon, Frege, etc". Have you changed your mind about the relative adoption of Clojure and Apache Groovy in the last two days?
There's something wrong when a testing framework hacks into a language parser to make the language statement labels have special meanings like function names do, and overload the `|` operator in expressions so data will appear as a table in the source code. "Lovely" isn't the word for that sort of thing.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯