Hacker News
points by the__alchemist 3 days ago | 0 comments
I wouldn't, because I do not think we should put up barriers in our application between OSs (Nor have to maintain separate UI code bases for each OS you think might use it). So I use cross-platform kits. There are compromises, but I don't care about the looks native qualification compared to works anywhere. Yes, the software looks like an EGUI app (etc. Substitute Qt), instead of Looks native, but I appreciate how I'm not setting up barriers between OSs or making extra work.
[–] jen20 3 days ago
I also don't care how if things _look_ native, I care if the work like a native app. For example, on the rare occasions I touch Windows, I expect standard keyboard shortcuts to work. On macOS, I expect full integration with the accessibility frameworks and OS affordances like services.

A lowest common denominator idea of "everywhere" is just not that useful.

[–] the__alchemist 3 days ago
How do you handle this for your own software? Could you please link me to one of your project's websites and install instructions? What specifically do you find that one OS has that's mandatory for a good/native UIs that others don't?

I hear you on the native UI is better all things considered. I'm trying to figure out how that works in practice. I.e., to accompany a "cross-platform UIs are inferior to native ones", you would be effective to also include the workflows you use. In a realm where you choose options, eliminating one should come with illuminating another, as one must choose a path, and others could be eliminated for their drawbacks as well, leaving none available. What is your path here?

[–] jen20 3 days ago
No - almost all of the software I work on is at least one of:

- proprietary,

- command line tooling,

- single-platform.

A good example of what I consider to be a great approach (not mine) is Ghostty, which has fully native UI per platform and a shared core between platforms. JetBrains tools also go out of their way to integrate with platform conventions everywhere.

An example that cross-platform toolkits usually get wrong: cursor navigation in text fields. Home and End do different things on different platforms, and on macOS, basic emacs/readline bindings are supposed to work in all text entry fields.

It’s worth noting that this extends beyond GUIs - command line tools written in Go tend to use “package flag” which is native nowhere. The standards between Windows (which has two, in cmd and powershell), GNU-style and “legacy” Unix style are just not reconcilable without implementing platform-specific behaviour.

[–] NetMageSCW 3 days ago
So instead you are creating a bad UI for all of your users. That’s very Java application (or perhaps Electron these days) of you, but seems like a poor trade-off to me.
[–] the__alchemist 3 days ago
Could you please clarify why you think cross-platform means bad UI?
[–] Doohickey-d 3 days ago
These days, with LLM assisted development, with relatively simple GUIs, I would go towards platform native GUIs per platform. And then all the shared business logic goes in a shared "core", with the GUIs only serving as "dumb" inputs and outputs, with all business logic shared between them.

LLMs are quite good at tedious tasks such as keeping multiple GUIs in different languages in sync with each other.

[–] Rohansi 3 days ago
You still need to test all of those separate GUIs though so it's still costing more.

You also generally don't want them to actually be in sync because there are actual UX differences between platforms that you need to align with to really be native. If you don't follow that then what's the point?

[–] floydnoel 3 days ago
I couldn’t disagree more, when it comes to UIs. They should match the platform they are being used on. Cross-platform always produces a very sub-par experience. But us developers tend to care primarily about what makes development easiest for us.
[–] the__alchemist 3 days ago
What does this mean in practice for software you write? What OSes to you build it for, and what OS or GUI-specific conventions to you follow which don't apply to others?

edit: Link software you wrote's installation instructions.

[–] floydnoel 3 days ago
You can just look at my profile and see some of it, or check out my website. I’ll have a new app to show soon, so stay tuned!
[–] the__alchemist 2 days ago
Those are web and mobile apps... Not PC software.
[–] floydnoel 2 days ago
web and mobile are both platforms with their own special quirks, APIs, and behaviors. however, you missed that Logbook Ed also runs on macOS.
[–] the__alchemist 2 days ago
I will just throw this out there:

- You have made the choice to make software only run on MacOS, excluding the (majority) of users who are not using that. This is balanced against the upside of native look and feel.

- I agree that web and mobile have many differences when comparing them to each other, or to PC software. The differences and conventions which relate to application development between Windows, MacOs, and Linux are much smaller than those. (The only concrete example mentioned in this broader discussion was Home and End keys can have different behavior). I see this as a matter of degree, not kind.

I keep coming back to "So, we are deliberately limiting our software to a single OS because... (Vaguely articulated reasons about native look and feel? About cross-platform applications having "bad UIs" and "subpar results"? I can't do anything with that because it's too vague, and doesn't match my experience. Home and End keys or other keyboard shortcuts which are easy to feature-gate if the GUI kit doesn't handle it which it probably does?) When weighing pros and cons, I need to see the cons.

[–] Rohansi 3 days ago
Not everyone has the resources to build five or six different UIs.
[–] floydnoel 3 days ago
I think it’s better to do a good job once rather than five or six bad jobs, but we all have different priorities.
[–] the__alchemist 2 days ago
What specifically to you about cross-platform UI means bad job? I.e. what functionality does Windows specifically support that must work when running the application on Windows that Gnome, for example doesn't? (Or any other GUI/OS comparison)
[–] Rohansi 2 days ago
A lot of it boils down to native widget look and feel. It's pretty silly in reality because there are multiple possible options for what is native on Windows (Win32/WinForms, WPF, UWP, WinUI, ...) and Linux (Qt, GTK, ...), so native apps will still be inconsistent. It's probably just an Apple thing really, because every other platform is already a big mix of different UI styles.
[–] Rohansi 3 days ago
The way you worded this message could mean either a) people should focus on a single platform using native frameworks, or b) people should use a cross-platform framework instead of spreading themselves too thin. Maybe even both?
[–] floydnoel 2 days ago
I suppose it’s hard to follow a thread across multiple comments, but like I said, cross platform UI toolkits give sub-par results.