• monogram@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

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

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • beleza pura@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days 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@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days 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.