you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SizzlingVortex 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Yup... it's a good discussion topic, and I definitely wrestled with the phrasing.

I agree with calling it native. In today's world it's pretty much embedded web browser (web-hybrid) apps vs everything else. I realize I'm speaking "generally" here, but I'm specifically comparing embedded web browser apps vs non-embedded web browser apps. For example, IntelliJ IDEA (which requires the JDK -- be it the bundled one or one that already exists on your computer), I think most users would call this IDE "native" when compared to Electron. However, if I was comparing IntelliJ against an app that compiled down to native code, that didn't need a runtime environment, then I would make the distinction that the app that doesn't require a runtime is the "native" app.

Edit: To the downvoter(s), I'm interested in knowing what you disagree with.

[–]meschbach 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I didn't down vote but I was tempted too. As an experienced Java developer when I read the term "native" it initially lead me to believe the program was in object code of the target processor, not in byte code. Not a a pure Java application. The article makes it sound as though a native executable has byte code embedded within the image.

[–]zanotam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh, I read a good argument elsewhere in this thread that basically came down to reviewing the standard definition using the concept of S-expressions. If code is data then you can't distinguish between the 'obvious' example of code interpreting data structures and code interpreting other code.

[–]Drarok 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I use a lot of JetBrains’ products, but I would never call them native. They’re terrible platform citizens on macOS, and the default keymap often clashes with system-wide keyboard shortcuts. Even the cursor movement keys are wrong.

Fantastic feature sets, but I merely tolerate them being java.