1. It seems that all proprietary software companies are de-prioritising their desktop OSes, in terms of focus and resources. Microsoft is doing weird tablet hybridisation and Apple is just porting iOS junk back from the iPad.
This creates a vacuum, as there is no modern desktop UI. Nothing's been done since roughly OS X. It's been 18 years. More than my whole adult life.
2. There will be very little financial incentive to fill this vacuum. Desktop OS:es only sell to the enterprise, which has different requirements, and Microsoft has that market cornered anyway.
No-one who is making software purely for money would be able to do this. Well, we, the FLOSS community, aren't, and so we can.
3. In order to do this, we need to experiment. A lot. And most of these experiments will probably fail.
For that to happen, the cost of development in terms of time and cognitive load must go down. Much like Rust seems to have enabled a wave of new command-line tools that are faster and much less boring than the traditional Unix tools. Making a GUI app must be roughly as complicated as making a CLI app.
4. This requires languages AND frameworks. The languages need to remove the incidental complexity in dealing with the concurrent situation that is a modern UX app. The frameworks need to encapsulate common patterns and remove boilerplate.
The languages are mostly there, I would argue, and the patterns are somewhat implemented (functional reactive programming, Excel, etc), but the frameworks are not just a little behind.
5. We also need to train FLOSS people in design AND recruit design-oriented people who may or may not code. This might also entail developing our tools for communication and infrastructure to also capture common workflows in design. I don't know, I'm not a designer.
@albin Agreed. I tried it too and didn't like it, but that's mostly because there's a lot of legacy stuff back from NEXTStep days, (a lot of APIs are even still named NS), which is not idiomatically integrated with Swift as ObjC doesn't really fit that model. But that wooudn't really be a problem with Linux if said frameworks were build from scratch. The point is, bellow the cruft, Mac has the most complete set of APIs to tap into for desktop dev, (in terms of functionality, not elegance of use)
@albin The reason why the likes of Sketch, Scrivener etc. are on the Mac is because of all that ready-made functionality you can tap into, which there's no real equivalent on #Linux. #KDE's trying it a bit with their split into frameworks, but that's largely tied to C++ because of Qt a bit too strongly and also tends to be specific to the KDE ecosystem.
If you look at all the functionality here, https://developer.apple.com/documentation - Linux does have most of it, but not nicely documented or unified.
@MatejLach I’m looking for things like even just a widget gallery online and how to do very common patterns (a list with things populated from whatever standard data store you have).
I think C and C++ are both too weak and too verbose for GUI programming. Neither have language constructs for dealing with concurrent programming, and extensions are often very clunky. Vala might work, I don’t know.
Yep. It might be as easy as making a simple 'orientation index' of what's available, because a lot of devs coming from integrated experiences like on the Mac are simply not sure where to look for the stuff they'd expect when developing for Linux.
I also happen to think we need a secondary choice/alternative to program in - something a bit more accessible to people than C/C++.
Qt now has official Python bindings so I think it would be useful for KDE to adopt it as well.
That said Rust won't be a simple transition and I'm sure it'll take a while, it's interpretation is a fair bit different from what they based their APIs on. Until then I may continue to see Vala as the best choice for developing GTK apps.
I think they've invested too heavily at this point in GObject to simply entirely drop it, it's far more than a OO system at this point. I think what they're going to do is to have wrappers around it that hopefully make it a more pleasant experience to write and maybe build Rust-native parts for the new libs etc. that will feel even more idiomatic.
As far as I understand it, some GNOME folks ( @federicomena, @slomo, @alatiera, ...) are interested in Rust, use it in some projects (librsvg, GStreamer plugins) and are working on ways to use GObject-based libraries *from* Rust (gtk-rs) & write GObject-based libraries *in* Rust (gnome-class); and that's it.
@alcinnz @slomo @MatejLach @federicomena @alatiera @bugaevc I just want to add my 50c:
as an ex-iOS dev I can say that developing for Apple is a pain. AppKit is such a nightmare, they're porting UIKit to macOS. No one sane even wants to touch default database, what are the super APIs you're talking about. There are desktop apps for mac because people who use mac are used to pay and a lot and UI people use it
@alcinnz @slomo @MatejLach @federicomena @alatiera @bugaevc ..
GObject is not ugly. GObject introspection is a very elegant system which allows you to write code in whatever you want, including Rust using generated bindings. We're only now coming to the same things with WebAssembly.
No one should write gobject apps by hand in C IMO but that doesn't mean it's not useful
"Due to the technologies and frameworks exclusive to macOS that Sketch has been built upon, regrettably we will not be considering supporting Sketch on either of these platforms."
I am not saying they're pretty to work with, but there's no denying that AppKit, Cocoa etc. provide a large set of functionality to tap into that while available on other platforms as well, is only really unified on macOS.
@MatejLach @alcinnz @slomo @federicomena @alatiera @bugaevc I read that as "we could only afford to build it for macOS and now porting just doesn't worth it because we're knee-deep in Apple stuff".
I doesn't see any value in there, they just used non-portable stack from the beginning. Would be nice to hear what is so irreplaceable they use if you're right.
I don't think anything there is technologically 'irreplaceable' in a technical sense. It's just that there's one SDK, using one language, conforming to the same set of patterns, accessible from a singular IDE etc.
It's not that there's something that Apple has that the other platforms don't. It's more like if you're a small shop, who has it all under one roof?
@charlag @MatejLach @slomo @federicomena @alatiera @bugaevc I understand they're situation, because for Odysseus I couldn't move away from WebKit (ironically here, an Apple lead project) if I wanted to. It'd be easier to rewrite it all from scratch!
Because almost every piece touches WebKitGTK's API, or if not that GTK's.
Though I'm not complaining, WebKitGTK is a nice piece of libre software that will at least run cross-platform.
@albin it's not a GNOME-wide official decision or anything like that.
A lot of people in the GNOME community are experimenting with Rust, and writing platform libraries and applications with it.
There is even some collaboration between those GNOME developers and the Rust community, in the form of hackfests gathering the two.
@devilish I always felt 3 addressed some mistakes in 2 (mainly Unicode), is there anything in particular you have a problem with? The things I would like to fix in python these days is mainly packaging and tooling (virtual environments), and the boilerplate needed for async.
@devilish most of the functional stuff is still there in various modules, but generally discarded in favour of list comprehensions, but I see your point
I'd prefer a statically typed language that simply compiles to a native binary, the reason I said Python is because that's the only thing Qt officially supports besides C++, making any other language rely on 3rd party libraries, which are not going to be as well supported as the official bindings by their very nature.
@MatejLach @alcinnz @albin https://developer.gnome.org/platform-overview/unstable/index.html.en is Gnome's index to the garden of delights.
@bugaevc @MatejLach I have only ever tried swift, but I dislike Xcode (and all IDEs), and I couldn’t find documentation for anything, including things like basic project structure and what even the basic code temples do, and there was a horrendous amount of boilerplate code and incidental complexity
Swift was created because ObjC is showing its age, rather crufty and it's not that pleasant on the eyes either.
From my own experience, having tried it myself, Swift is actually rather nice to work with. The problem is that Swift, the language, is a small part of the picture.
Most of the time, you'll spend time with Mac's frameworks, which were not made for Swift's functional paradigm, they're still the same old ObjC, wrapped in extremely thin, unidiomatic Swift wrappers.
So you have this nice, modern language - Swift - but you rarely get to write it idiomatically or allow for its expressiveness to shine, because you're constrained by Cocoa/AppKit, which are very much 80s OO.
Then there's the whole thing about Apple having very deliberate patterns, which also don't mix well with Swift, that you need to follow, Xcode constantly loosing syntax highlighting & requiring you to fiddle with settings that are hard to find, Storyboards being a mess...
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully.