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