Hacker News Reader

Comment by taf2 | Hacker News Reader

This is great. My experience with XML for UI went something like this.

1. build an XML language for abstracting C++ UI MCF or gtk

2. realizing the need for HTML content - embed mozilla/xulrunner

3. realzing xulrunner /mozilla already provide a cross platform toolkit use XUL to build the user interface with xpcomm wrappers

4. realize that HTML is better for user interface, and only write HTML/javascript with xpcomm wrappers.

5. switch to web development completely and avoid desktop apps all together :)

6. from time to time check in on the state of desktop/app development and see if they've finally figured out html is better for interfaces than any interface builder

View on HN

> from time to time check in on the state of desktop/app development and see if they've finally figured out html is better for interfaces than any interface builder

Is this for real? I can name numerous advantages of Web Apps have over desktop/native Apps, "Building better interfaces" is not one of them.

Trying to build a UI with CSS and DOM manipulation (not to mention <div> hacks, Bootstrap, Dojo/JQueryUI, different rendering engines, etc) is an exercise in pain compared to basically _any_ modern UI toolkit. (From XAML to Qt, Android, hell even GTK.)

edit: minor correction, I meant to say " build a UI" not "build a native UI"

see it's crazy. I don't know how to relate and I see it's the same for you. To me there's nothing easier than building UI in HTML with CSS and JavaScript. Using code to tweak padding and positioning in native code with a compile step is much slower IMO then

10.times { alt+tab, edit, cmd+r } -> perfect

[edit] - i should mention I spent a lot of time building desktop apps but haven't put much time into the newer mobile apps ios or android maybe it's improved a lot in ten years?

[edit] - last edit, I know it's improved and I suspect it's a matter of taste and proficiency that makes the difference.

You're right - but the real win here is that hundred of thousands of developers already know HTML + CSS, and very few developers know XUL or even any native UI API. Given that these native APIs change with the platform, many developers have given up on them since HTML + CSS will be useful for the foreseeable future.

Is XUL really better than HTML + CSS? Probably. But HTML + CSS is getting a lot better (flexbox, etc), and tons of developers know it now and can contribute. Plus, dogfooding. I think it's a really good move!

Sure, RAM usage will probably get worse, but perhaps it will motivate them to improve that as well, and all users of the browser on all pages will benefit as a result.

I don't know if XUL is better than HTML + CSS, I haven't used XUL. I have used XAML and Qt, and the Android Layout Manager. and they are way easier to deal with.

In HTML, a button is not a button, it's a DIV with an CSS properties (which render differently depending on the browser) + some images + some Javascript. And that abstraction leaks a lot.

The equivalent in native code will be having to deal with Xlib in X11 or GDI on Windows every time you debug.

That said, there is value in HTML/CSS/JS UIs, I don't deny that, and I use them when appropriately. I still think native UIs are 'cleaner' to develop.

While that's true, a lot of the frustration with HTML/CSS/JS melts away when you have only a single target environment and don't have to worry about browser compatibility. Targeting a modern environment like Gecko would actually be quite nice; you could use a lot of modern ES6 features and Flexbox.

You should look into atom-shell and node-webkit... both are nice options if you want a cross-platform UI app with html+css+js.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com