[dwb]

I’m definitely not advocating more little electron apps, and I’m totally with you on TUI’s benefits. I’m bemoaning the lack of imagination that has ended us up here and not in a situation where we can have, say, a small, low-footprint application that can deliver a more structured UI with minimal dependencies. It’s not an impossibility, it’s not even that difficult to imagine, we just don’t have the exact technology.

[flomo]

I'm with you.

The thing is Windows 98 let you throw up a HTML window with almost zero overhead (the OS used the same libraries) and javascript could get data easily from another process via COM etc.

Now like 25 years later, apparently our choices are shipping bespoke copies of Chrome and Node, OR making shit work on an emulated 1981 DEC terminal. Lack of vision is exactly right.

[chrysoprace]

I think for the time being, there's no way to get around writing native UIs to get a native experience. Any sufficiently high level APIs will have to give up something. TUIs for me fill that niche because across any POSIX-compatible interface they will generally work the same, and modern high level languages make cross-compiling to terminals a breeze. Now to write a native UI across Windows, MacOS, Wayland and X11, that's a different story.

[dwb]

I’m happy to give up a lot; I’m not tied to fully-native-looking UIs for the types of things I’m talking about. Totally get that lowest common denominators will feel native nowhere. I just think it’s possible to do a lot better than the current state of TUIs.

[exceptione]

We do. We are only stubborn. Cross platform and low-footprint:

  .net core => avalonia ui
  Java => JavaFX