You do not know their specific issues, their wording isn’t stating what you seem to think.

The master branch approach isn’t always ideal and people prefer having actual releases to base their work on. Not having a set release cadence and it more or less being on the whims of the one maintainer doesn’t exactly inspire the same level of trust you get from Dioxus/etc.

▲

chironjit 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

>The master branch approach isn’t always ideal and people prefer having actual releases to base their work on.

I think this is me. My view is basically like this - if you use a tech you know works, you're only wrangling with your bugs. If you use a tech that is still being worked on, you are wrangling your bugs and the bugs of the tech you're using.

To be fair, I've tried this master branch thing with both Iced and PopOS's Iced fork. One year ago, PopOs's Iced fork was so slow I realised it basically wasn't going to be production ready for non Pop distros anytime soon.

IMO, both suffer from having very slow release cadence but at least dioxus has CSS

▲

airstrike 2 days ago | parent [-]

I appreciate the thoughtful replies. I struggle to understand why CSS is such a big deal if you're not building for the web. I can make my app as pretty as I'd like using styling that isn't CSS. OK, maybe I miss glow effects, some nicer gradients and 3D transforms, but those are far from showstoppers and still worth giving up for everything else I gain with iced

▲

chironjit 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't have an eye for styling. That said, I have hundreds of hours of experience using CSS and frameworks such as tailwindCSS.

Of course, if I am being honest, the real reason is that there is so much CSS code out there, I can really find anything I need. And so can the LLMs.

▲

airstrike 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks. I've been meaning to make a shadcn-like library for iced. Would that help?

	▲	chironjit a day ago \| parent [-]
		You bet! Shadcn is defacto component framework for a reason - it removes a lot of the mental load of design when you're an individual/small team building apps

▲

airstrike 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No issue at all is guaranteed to be fixed by the next release. There's no expectations that the deck of issues gets cleared when a new release is published, so conflating the two topics isn't accurate or helpful.

You'll have to explain why the master branch approach isn't ideal. The only argument I've seen hold up is that the community can pin their own crates around a specific release, so if you rely on a lot of third party crates, you benefit from more frequent releases. Given iced is still pre-1.0, I do not encourage people to rely on a lot of third party crates. Most of them also have permissive MIT licenses so you can always bring any one-off bit of code into your own crate and maintain attribution. I did that with the split widget from iced_aw, which was available in 0.12 and dropped by those maintainers when 0.13 came around. I've since made several tweaks to it to fit my specific use cases, so all in all I'm just better off vendoring it myself.

In fact, you also have no guarantee that third-party crates will (1) continue to update for future releases and (2) evolve their own APIs in the manner that you prefer. So if you're worried about being up-to-date and/or stability, again bringing the code into your crates is again the better choice—at the obvious cost of having to maintain it yourself, but such is the nature of software.

I do not know what you mean by "inspire the same level of trust". Or I think I do, but I do not think it's helpful language or an accurate framing. Are you a part of the iced community? I can't speak for everyone, but ISTM that most everyone trusts hecrj implicitly—and we all understand iced is a labor of love, not commercial and the fact that it is subject to his whims actually helps guide a specific vision forward, however long that may take. The ride has been great so far. The Pop!_OS team seems to agree.

Finally, about Dioxus specifically, I'll leave this informative video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKvFFf04clU

	▲	chironjit 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I watched this video when it first came out. Honestly, the video is right in what it was trying to say. That said, that video didn't change my mind on whether to build on Dioxus and it should not for someone either. The choice of framework should not be dependent on who else is building on that framework. Ideally the factors that matter: 1) Why are you building a GUI app on rust? 2) Target platform/OS support? 3) Are you ok with custom styling methods? Would you prefer to use CSS? 4) Need for multi threading? 5) Publishing / bundling / signing app I think the reason Dioxus cadence release is slow is that they realised so many things are missing with the rust gui ecosystem that they decided they needed to fix these while building the main product. Guess what, this basically slows down your main product cadence. Does rust need a sub second hot reloader? Yes. Does rust need a native html/CSS renderer? Also probably yes. Did the Dioxus team have to take it on given their size and all the things pending in building rust with html + css? Armchair observer me thinks not. Note that I am currently building an app with Dioxus, so I'm putting out my honest opinion, and not saying that you shouldn't use it.