They're right along the same order of magnitude for size. Install size has very little connection to standards/api complexity. It's just a bad argument.
The right discussion (which you're nicely skipping by talking about install size) is "how does the complexity of QT widget selection compare to html?"
QT gets the perks of being able to remove deprecated items - so I fully expect theirs to be a more minimal set. That's a luxury not afforded to browsers.
So again...
---
> What the system gives is exactly a canvas to render stuff on.
Render fucking how? The deliverable wasn't code, it was an html document. That's the defining history of browsers.
1. I am sure there are historical reasons for the way things are.
2. Qt is not a platform. XDG/Wayland/Vulkan/PipeWire/D-Bus is the platform. Qt is a library. The platform is (relatively) lean. And the library is more complex. Whether an app is written in Qt or GTK or anything else it should be transparent for the end user. Whether an app is an executable or a website is not transparent, hence different platforms.
3. Rendering in terms of HTML/CSS is certainly valuable, but it can be reduced to a small subset of what it is + libraries.
4. This reduction would be very useful.
5. In this counter-factual reduction, one can just invent a better method for library deliverables, although I suspect a long TTL chached GET from a cannonical source would be much more than sufficient.
> That's a luxury not afforded to browsers.
That's a luxury not afforded to platforms. You cannot remove core Wayland protocols or core Vulkan functions or Linux syscalls.
This generally isn't an issue if you don't bloat them in the first place with things that don't belong in a platform and that belong in a library.
Chrome is ~100mb.
They're right along the same order of magnitude for size. Install size has very little connection to standards/api complexity. It's just a bad argument.
The right discussion (which you're nicely skipping by talking about install size) is "how does the complexity of QT widget selection compare to html?"
And... I find the spaces incredibly similar - this feels decidedly like browsing html components: https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/widget-classes.html
QT gets the perks of being able to remove deprecated items - so I fully expect theirs to be a more minimal set. That's a luxury not afforded to browsers.
So again...
---
> What the system gives is exactly a canvas to render stuff on.
Render fucking how? The deliverable wasn't code, it was an html document. That's the defining history of browsers.