> and Microsoft tends to abandon each new UI framework every five years

So use the old one? Your first link literally mentions two ancient frameworks that are not abandoned (win32 and MFC)

But you're right

> So, it's more useful to ask: what do we expect from good native apps?

The challenge, though, is there isn't really a good comprehensive list of those things the would allow you to compare the framework you use to native. And you can't patch everything if you don't even know where the holes are

So that why this is correct...

> Qt apps typically don't look or behave exactly like native apps,

... but this is theoretical

> I'm going to argue that they can.

Yes, of course they can, but to do in reality requires too much effort, so you end up with with the state mentioned in the first part of the quote. (that's the whole point of the framework - to handle that complexity for you, and if the whole huge QT can't do that even though "they can" why do you think a single dev can?)

> At the same time, I've grown fond of Markdown. The idea that all my notes are formatted in a syntax that will essentially last as long as computers exist—plain text—is very reassuring

That's a very common mistake as well. It's true only for very primitive parts of markdown, which is rather limiting for notes, but if you venture into the more complicated extensions/HTML area, then it's not different from any other format - as long as the format codecs work, it's usable. Like, even word doc is plain ugly XML text, so will exist forever?

> rendering the underlying Markdown when the cursor is inside a Markdown-formatted text—was quite challenging.

Indeed, because it's not fit for purpose.

> For example, if the cursor is inside this bold and italicized text it will show as *bold and italicized text*.

So you now have constant layout shifts when you simply move your caret around.

> The challenge, though, is there isn't really a good comprehensive list of those things the would allow you to compare the framework you use to native. And you can't patch everything if you don't even know where the holes are

> Yes, of course they can, but to do in reality requires too much effort, so you end up with with the state mentioned in the first part of the quote. (that's the whole point of the framework - to handle that complexity for you, and if the whole huge QT can't do that even though "they can" why do you think a single dev can?)

Yep. This is why I'm now working on a framework built on top of Qt that takes care of all these small but important details that takes time to figure out that Qt isn't equipped with built-in. For example, smooth swipeable StackView on mobile, support for native text handling on mobile, smooth scrolling on ListViews (that's horrible now), etc etc.

> So you now have constant layout shifts when you simply move your caret around.

That's a feature in such apps (look at Bear, etc). I plan to have an option to disable that so the editor is entirely WYSIWYG.

>Your first link literally mentions two ancient frameworks that are not abandoned (win32 and MFC)

Do UIs built with MFC still look like they were built in the 1990s?