Depends on what you are building, but overall I'd say the friction is minimal. For a lot of apps you won't even need to care about Rust whatsoever as you just use a bunch of fairly standard JS/TS api's.
On the Rust side it's also quite nice, easy to make plugins, good api's, all the goodies.
If you do use both the bridge can cause some friction because of serialization. I have personally not had any problems with it. Also good to note that in v2 (is in beta) they are improving this.
I mean, if we are allowed to lie in order to promote Rust, why don't we just smear all the C/C++ code bases in the world as security hazard needed to be sorted out ASAP?
I doubt security is the matter everyone is concerned with but rather the quality of tooling and developer experience.
It is, of course, difficult to convey to developers who only experienced C and C++ build systems, or Ruby tooling and brittleness, or Python way of managing dependencies, or setting up the packaging when using Java, that fast and easy to use solutions do not come from trade-offs but from just better ways of doing so - using cargo and Rust or dotnet and C# is night and day difference compared to options listed above.
I said it here in the past and will say it again: it's not that Rust (or .NET for that matter) are that good, it's a lot of other popular languages and platforms are that bad at one or another aspect (or many at the same time), that make it sufficiently painful to never tolerate a downgrade when you worked with a tool that offers better all-around experience.
I value good tooling as much as the next software engineer. We have good IDEs, build systems, package managers in Java and .NET lands; but we also have a decent environment of established, well-maintained libraries and frameworks.
Rust is deemed to have good tooling, but the third-party library ecosystem is following the NPM/RubyGems culture with all the fragmented dependencies, plus the added complexity of compile times due to lack of ABI compatibility.
Meanwhile, monolithic projects like Tokio also keep strengthening their reign among the small peasant crates.
I'm learning Rust, after decades of various languages with garbage collector, and I believe in the language itself and its tooling. But everything else about Rust irks me.
You probably missed the news about "protestware" open source software harming their users' computers based on their IP address locations, or software engineers being fired from their jobs, or people getting banned from online/offline social gatherings, and thousands of other examples occurred due to political motives.
> But how would anyone know?
You're asking the wrong questions. What if they know? Am I supposed to hide my entire being to avoid the "excommunication"?
That information is several years out of date. At best, the build tools in the ecosystem don't do a great job of supporting modules, but that's about it.
And your comment about `jlink` MIGHT be true if your application is nor modular/ does not use modules with a well-formed `module-info.java`. I haven't tried an automatic module in a long time. If your application is modular, everything happens as expected. I do this for all the builds for all of my projects. Last build from last night confirms that it still works, and works well.
I don't know JGoodies Binding so I can't help you with that, sorry. The concept is general. The code above uses Kotlin syntax for brevity but of course you can use Kotlin with Swing too.
> > Turkey has had a significant internal conflict with the PKK (Kurds)
> PKK the terrorist organization, yes. Kurds the ethnic group, no.
The Turkish government has a decades long history of discrimination against Kurds, including banning their language, even denying their existence as a people. If Turkey had treated Kurds better, PKK may well have never existed, and almost certainly would not have had as many Kurds supporting it even if it still had.
Turkish Government has had many high-ranking Kurdish officials, including multiple presidents and prime ministers.
There have been more Kurds served in the Turkish Army than all the other armed organizations combined.
Majority of Kurds in Turkey openly support the Turkish Government, especially against the PKK terror.
Several Kurdish organizations in Iraq, Syria, and Iran support the Turkish Government, especially against the PKK terror.
PKK kills Kurds. PKK kills Turks. PKK will happily kill you if doing so benefits the crime and propaganda business they have been profiting for decades.
Let's not parrot some politically charged material as facts without having any actual understanding about such sensitive matter.
> The Kurdish language was banned in a large portion of Kurdistan for some time. After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état until 1991 the use of the Kurdish language was illegal in Turkey.[52]
> Before August 2002, the Turkish government placed severe restrictions on the use of Kurdish, prohibiting the language in education and broadcast media.[55][56] In March 2006, Turkey allowed private television channels to begin airing programming in Kurdish. However, the Turkish government said that they must avoid showing children's cartoons, or educational programs that teach Kurdish, and could broadcast only for 45 minutes a day or four hours a week
It is true that over the last 20 years or so, the Turkish government has relaxed many (but not all) of its anti-Kurdish laws and policies. But that doesn't erase the reality of the decades of oppression which proceeded it.
In the 1980s, Iraqi Kurds were fleeing to Turkey for freedom and safety. The Prime Minister was of Kurdish origin. You could hear people speak Kurdish freely anywhere between the west and east end of the country.
There were no "anti-Kurdish" laws and policies. The pro-American coup d'état in 1980 came with a law to control non-Turkish publications, but it was never put into action.
You can't just dump links to 10,000-word political essays, and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.
You must have a knowledge about the history and currency of the topic to hold such strong opinions. You should also use your own words to articulate your arguments, so I can keep myself engaged in this conversation.
Nevertheless, I've read the report. It misinterprets the government's certain actions to protect the public against several jihadist, separatist, and other destructive movements, which are not exclusive to a specific ethnic group.
It also fails to recognize the newly founded republic's goal to build an inclusive Turkish citizenship identity, and to provide a progressive and secular education program to everyone regardless of their race, religion, and gender while preserving the cultural value of each.
"Kurdish" isn't a single language anyway. There is a reason Kurds use French in France, English in USA/UK/Canada, and Turkish in every part of Turkey to communicate with each other, unless they're from the same tribe. It's not realistically possible to institute a system to provide public service to every individual without establishing a common ground.
> and expect them to support your original premise that the PKK terrorism is justified.
I'm not defending attacks on innocent civilians. Consider Northern Ireland: the IRA's attacks on civilians were shameful and wrong. But, if it were not for the oppression of Catholics by the Stormont government, and the failure of the UK government to stop it, those attacks may well have never started.
You're trying to connect the dots between two separate phenomenons. This oversimplification will only mislead you.
You'd think that your left-wing instincts will guide you through this, but you will accidentally end up taking ugly sides in proxy wars in this part of the world.
PKK started out according to CIA's Operation Gladio to justify the 1980 coup, and continued operating in line with the Carter Doctrine. Its first actions were assassinating Kurdish and Turkish left-wing leaders (Zeki Ön, Mehmet Ongan, Adil Turan, Hasan Erkılıç to name a few).
Today, PKK follows the radical Islamist narratives (Şeyh Said, Seyit Rıza, etc. are often celebrated by them). PKK is in agreement with an Islamist terrorist organization (FETÖ) behind the 2016 coup attempt, whose leader (Fethullah Gülen) resides in the US. PKK conducts international drug trafficking at "cartel" scale (between Asia and Europe; ask your neighborhood drug dealer about it). PKK is backed by several crime syndicates and tribes who are responsible for countless human rights violations from systematic child/woman abuse to forced labour and human trafficking. PKK is currently taking part in the ethnic cleansing of Arabic, Turkish, Assyrian population in Syria and Iraq to make a space for an American-backed puppet state under "YPG" alias.
How is your IRA-PKK correlation shaping up now?
Your "reputable sources" are compilations of quotes by "usual suspects" anyway. Western organizations are not known for being the gold standard of social justice advocacy here, as they have a history of endorsing any "project" that fits their financial and political agenda; from cyanide process in gold mining, to civil warfare for carving up sovereign states.
Super viable. I'm aware of several companies using the LGPL license for their closed source desktop applications, including my own. Don't let the other replies scare you. No one will call and threaten you and you don't need a lawyer. For cross platform native desktop applications, Qt is far and away the best option. QtCreator is pretty awesome too.
You will be missing a few modules/plugins/tools which are commercial-only (I cannot seem to find the actual list right now though) but other than that, the LGPL was made exactly for that reason to allow linking an open-source library (Qt) into a closed-source program.
As long as you don't modify the Qt source (or you modify and re-distribute it per LGPL) you should be safe (IANAL obviously)
As long as you dynamically link and don't use the non-free components (charts, etc.), I think it would be just fine for a C++ or Python app. However, personally, I am leaning towards Flutter atm. They have decent emulated native looking controls for Windows/Mac, seems to have a strong cross platform focus, strong Rust integration via a bridge library, and has a better license with good free charting options.
I have a project I built using Qt version 5. It seems to work pretty well. I didn't upgrade to version 6 because it was initially missing some modules I was using, but it sounds like they have now ported those to their version 6 code. When I get some cycles, I will have to look into upgrading.
The LGPL license allows you to make closed applications without problems if you comply with the rules. But the Qt guys will call you and make threats (very nicely). Real case.
What? It's doesn't take a genius to understand it. They clearly label what is and what is not LGPL. It doesn't hurt to double check the source files of course and have redundant confirmation. You don't need a lawyer for everything in life.
I don't need a lawyer to use a LGPL lib. Considering how many threats you have to go through to get the LGPL version, I need one because Digia is likely to disagree with my interpretation.
Is there a lot of friction between the Rust core and the TypeScript frontend?