Yeah, I think people who have not experienced the system have no idea how absurd the German process mindset is. If it's not part of the process, it's impossible - damned what the reality on the ground is
I'm surprised your take is so controversial. This really is it - yes, the current core users are not interested in AI but most people in our lives who are not techies do use them, and Firefox needs win these users if it wants to stay relevant.
Of course, I have opinions on other ways it could make money instead of jumping on the latest hot thing (pocket, fakespot, VPN, etc) without actually truly building the ecosystem but at least they are trying.
The TLDR is that this race condition happened with unsafe code, which was needed to interact with existing C code. This was not a vulnerability with Rust's model.
That said, you can absolutely use bad coding practices in Rust that can cause issues, even for a regular programmer.
Using unwrap without dealing with all return cases is one example. Of course, there is a right way to dealing with return methods, but it's up to the programmer to follow it
Adding my 2 cents worth to this: why is there not a Mozilla family internet suite of privacy browser, VPN, relay, tracker blocker, etc for one price? I already pay for family plans for other services, so this is a no brainer if it exists.
Right now, all of Mozilla's products are not even available in a standardised form in key countries. For example, I pay for Mozilla relay and VPN, and these are not available in the same countries!
Mind you, I'm lucky to have actual access to several countries, and so I can work around this. But really, why can't this team just put everything in one place for me?
Besides relay and Mozilla VPN, I am also paying for Bit warden password manager.
I'm also willing to pay for a privacy-first email(though I haven't done so yet), and please have a family plan that bundles all of this together!
If Norton can have an Internet Suite, why can't Mozilla?
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
It feels a little cringe how Elm and the "Elm way of thinking" is so heavily emphasised, but after using Iced, IMO this is probably one of the best gui models without having to implement signals or message passing or IPCs like Dioxus/Tauri does with frontend/backend. Other key advantages Iced has includes daemon mode, native ability to use multi threading and also multi-window support
That said, for actually building most apps, what's more important is likely ease of learning and using the framework, platform/OS support, publishing support, etc, none of which Iced itself directly address.
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.*
>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
I've built apps with Iced, Dioxus and PopOS's version of Iced. Here is my opinion:
1) Iced requires you to style everything in their own styling methods. It's not as intuitive as CSS. I found that, coming from using CSS, I struggled to recreate the style to the same high bar I expected from websites using css.
2)LLMs are not as familiar with Iced's styling, and will struggle with helping you plus also dealing with the breaking changes between Iced versions. Same to a lesser extent with Dioxus
3) Dioxus is easier to build by hand and via LLMs since you just use CSS/tailwind CSS. That said, even Dioxus is rough on the edges, you occassionly get some weird bugs, that you just have to deal with
4)PopOS' Iced version is great if you're using it on PopOS specifically but will require you to install a separate style pack on other linux distros to get the styling of the windows to show correctly. It's more mature than the original Iced IMO, though it's opinionated styling(of it's starter boilerplate) may be less to your liking. While I haven't used it in some time, I would consider it an almost independent fork by now
5) Last but most important negative IMO of Iced and Dioxus is their release cadence. Iced 0.14 has now launched more than a year since 0.13. For some the stability is great, but for frameworks that are still maturing with lots of improvements pending, I think it's actually important to have faster release cadences so that you know issues you face are not left hanging for a fix for a year.
Now onto more practical stuff:
1) If you need simple, standalone apps, any one will work. I think this may be true for your app idea
If you need speed of change, multi platform, etc, you will likely end up with Tauri. In that case, you might as well use the front-end framework you like.
2) None of the frameworks give you a pathway to publishing except Tauri. Basically, only Tauri really puts that as part of its guide, and so when you are going to Publish, you will be using Tauri's guide anyway
3) If you need multi-processing, Dioxus is out of your option, or you will end up using Tauri with Dioxus as your front-end
This is pretty cool. Can't believe how many got I 100 just on my mobile. I consider myself horrible at fonts and design and could never design my own, but maybe good styling is something that can be internalised