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.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] monogram 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

There’s a difference between a framework that builds to an exe and one that can develop in windows

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] bunitor@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

as someone who used to develop a cross-platform (linux and windows) desktop application: the bulk of development took place on linux. i only ever booted to windows to build the app and make windows-exclusive adjustments, but never to actually develop any features

[–] monogram 0 points 9 hours ago

My past experience in desktop apps have been Flutter and Wails and have always cross compiled to an exe.

The less I need to touch windows the better.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Windows is fine. Get off your high horse.

[–] monogram -1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

If you’re going to defend a mega corp, please do so on MS Teams 🤡

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

Let's not conflate defending OSs (and their derivatives) with the organisations that produce them.

Ubuntu has always been a great entry for Linux users yet canonical has always had at least one thing going on to infuriate the community (flip-flopping around half-baked DEs and the transitions between them, snaps, etc...)

Arch has always been the most customisable, but the leads have shied away from including a little setup wizard/script to automate what 90% of all users end up installing anyway.

Fedora has always been a great middleground, but on the other hand: Red Hat

Windows and Microsoft are no different. Base install Windows 11 is a 5/10 experience, but with your set-and-forget open source fix of choice (Win11Debloat, tronscript, etc...) becomes a solid 9/10 with next to no effort.