PyQt is just the Python binding for Qt, so don't expect a fully polished website there. If you really want to compare Electron with QT, I suggest looking at the main QT website:

https://www.qt.io/

Also, having developed apps in both frameworks I would say that it's easier to get started with Electron if you come from a HTML/CSS/JS background, but apps written in QT look more native and like "real" desktop apps to me. Also, QT as well as PyQT are incredibly well designed libraries and it's a lot of fun programming with them (I'm not saying that it's not as much fun programming in JS).

It's not crazy to expect a UI toolkit website (even if it's just the bindings...) to have a better presence/pitch to make the sell. UI toolkits are built on how good they look and what they enable you to do, and the last thing PyQt should be doing is forcing people to check out a very marketing-heavy Qt main page.

That's not true, Qt itself doesn't look like anything. It's the style engine that matters in this case. The framework itself is interesring from the API viewpoint.

It does reflect the priorities of the community, though.

PyQT's page is clearly written by a developer, with an emphasis on explaining the internals of the library. The author clearly saw no need to make it attractive. There is no long-term vision beyond the library itself.

While PyQT is navel-gazing, Electron's page is all about grabbing mindshare and establishing clout. It seeks to conquer the world and your desktop, and you're going to like it.

As a developer, Electron's page shows their prowess in writing good front end code, which is really important. As someone who understands the basic concept of Electron, I want a product that demonstrates those competencies.

I get what you're saying, but "writes good web front end code" isn't on my list when I'm looking for a good Desktop development framework.

I think stuff like this is pretty tribal, which is OK, but we should confuse it with decisions made on technical or experience merits.

We shouldn't, but we will.

We're still savanna primates, and silly little things like technical merits aren't going to get in the way of sexy shiny. Projects that understand this fact will attract developers and flourish, and those that don't will languish in forgotten obscurity.

When the "good Desktop development framework" is primarily in javascript, it's a good signal.

There are a lot of counter-examples:

  - apache

  - lighttpd

  - v8

  - PostgreSQL

  - Linux

  - Go

  - ZeroMQ

  - any imaging library (libpng, libjpeg)

  - any compression library (zlib, xz, bzip2)

  - urxvt

  - vim

  - emacs

  - tmux

Basically none of these have good websites. When I'm looking for a CSS framework or like, UI tricks like scriptaculous then I think it's a good signal, but past that I really think there's no link here. Really "has a good website" means "someone who knows how to build good websites built one for this project".

I would expect that apache and lighttpd are hosted in their respective projects; linux is used to run linux.com servers, etc.

Sure because those are examples of what you can do with the tech. You can't really make a website with Qt, so using... PyQt's website as an example for evaluation doesn't make a ton of sense.

Is it really that good though, or is it just that a lot of design effort (and dollars) have been put into it? Just based on the quality of electron based applications I have used, I feel like this basically amounts to spending a lot of time polishing a turd. Why compliment or be distracted by how shiny it is?

As a developer consuming the PyQT API, explanations of internals have come in handy.

I prefer the pyqt website. No stupid animations. No bullshit. Just clear links to all the information you need, easily available docs, etc. I mean, it's kind a real reflection of the two frameworks. Do you want a framework that requires a 90MB payload with it that's a resource hog and a web browser or do you want something small, light and works?

We want that, but we are the minority.

I do agree that PyQt has a respectable documentation page. It is, however, a terrible page for attracting new developers and selling decision makers on the idea of using it.

> a terrible page for attracting new developers

This is a better way of identifying my frustration: open source projects don't just need good docs, they need to attract and inspire... especially visual frameworks like a GUI.

> It is, however, a terrible page for attracting new developers and selling decision makers on the idea of using it.

Would that be attracting people that are worth attracting though? Just like in business, not all customers are worth having.

This is a personal decision I'm fine with - but that's not how your project gets adopted.

Man, I'd hope so. Good engineers in this space tend to have a sense of style, IMHO.

I agree... and I think there is a similar POV when looking at the results of tkinter and an Electron app. The visuals alone are worth it... let alone the ease of development and packaging.

If I was picking one based on their website, I'd no doubt go for PyQT. "Marketing" is just a eulogy for lying I think. And it further annoys me when FOSS projects imitate IT companies and try to do marketing.

I like a polished website, but technical info ultimately drives decisions.

Aw, but it appears to be run by Trac and that always gives me flashbacks to the good old days.

Its 15 years older.

If I'm going to use a GUI toolkit, the last thing I want to hear is "it hasn't been updated/hasn't had a revamp in 15 years". I know it's just the site, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

A lot of the wind went to the web resulting in a lot of churn there. Think of this as the LTS. Or, in other words, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.