Why would someone use this when NW.js (formerly node-webkit) has essentially complete and native-from-using-Chromium (instead of libchromiumcontent) non-"polyfill" support for Chrome apps, and they consider it a supported platform feature as opposed to some third-party tack on (which isn't even trying to be fully compatible; as, in the README, this developer says he is refusing to implement chrome.socket to spec simply because he feels the API is "kinda crap")?
Not to disregard that NW.js might be a better choice in this case due to the API support.
But generally speaking, Electron:
- Is more tested in production (VS Code, Atom, [1])
- Has a larger and more active community
- Has (at least in the past) started using newer versions of Node and Chrome long before NW.js (Especially with Node when v4 came out this was a relevant drawback)
- Tested both the newest versions on Windows 10 right now, Electron used ~50mb less RAM, and less CPU. (Of course this isn't a very relevant test, more of an observation, these numbers could vary greatly between systems and platforms).
On the flip side, some reasons to use NW.js:
- "Source code protection", which gives a ~30% performance reduction. Electron devs has chosen not to implement this due to that drawback.
- Better support for transparent windows, at least in the past. (At the expense of disabling hardware acceleration).
Note that some of this information might be a few months out of date, mostly in regards to NW.js.
There are some useful Chrome Apps out there. I can think of Authy, Postman and Signal.
Oh, I remember Moxie claiming that they've built Signal as a Chrome app because Chrome has won the desktop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665679 - I can't decide whether this is funny or sad.
Wow. Google deprecating Chrome apps will hurt the Chromebook ecosystem, who will develop apps that can only be run on a Chromebook? What's up their sleeve here? Expanding the Play store to desktops?
It's a shame, really as I actually appreciate chrome apps, considering I use OS X/macOS, Linux and Windows regularly, there's a handful of things I like carrying over with my logged in chrome.
Although there are, or at least were some definite holes in app support.. namely a stand-alone (as much as can be) mail client that supports pop/imap and smtp with tls support. There's a halfway decent SSH client, though getting your private key in can be cumbersome. Aside from that, I don't mind most of my apps being browser based. There are of course limitations, but the remote desktop and ssh apps cover most of that for me.
Thanks for the link, there is some good stuff there.
What is really puzzling though, if you believe their rationale for axing Chrome apps, is why they would need to carve out an exception for Chrome OS.
If Chrome apps have truly been superseded by browser and web standards then why are they still needed on Chrome OS? If they have extra functionality, then why remove them from the desktop? If they don't, then why keep them on Chrome OS?
I dislike running a whole browser beside my Chrome browser. I think Chrome should be like the webview in Android 7.0 Nougat, an component/interface/platform you can use also for external programs but only completely external managed UI wise (no internal UI like for Chrome Apps).
I don't thinks so. I believe that that is a different use of the word "app". That flag means "open this website and make it look like a native app", the "Chrome Apps" are extensions that use a different set of APIs.
Disclaimer: I work at Google but don't have any insider knowledge of this.
[+] [-] saurik|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dinius|9 years ago|reply
On the flip side, some reasons to use NW.js: - "Source code protection", which gives a ~30% performance reduction. Electron devs has chosen not to implement this due to that drawback. - Better support for transparent windows, at least in the past. (At the expense of disabling hardware acceleration).
Note that some of this information might be a few months out of date, mostly in regards to NW.js.
[1]: http://electron.atom.io/#apps
[+] [-] kzahel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kzahel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulddraper|9 years ago|reply
Chrome Web Store listings will be gone in a year; they'll stop working another six months after that.
http://blog.chromium.org/2016/08/from-chrome-apps-to-web.htm...
[+] [-] bad_user|9 years ago|reply
Oh, I remember Moxie claiming that they've built Signal as a Chrome app because Chrome has won the desktop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665679 - I can't decide whether this is funny or sad.
[+] [-] learningman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracker1|9 years ago|reply
Although there are, or at least were some definite holes in app support.. namely a stand-alone (as much as can be) mail client that supports pop/imap and smtp with tls support. There's a halfway decent SSH client, though getting your private key in can be cumbersome. Aside from that, I don't mind most of my apps being browser based. There are of course limitations, but the remote desktop and ssh apps cover most of that for me.
[+] [-] tux1968|9 years ago|reply
What is really puzzling though, if you believe their rationale for axing Chrome apps, is why they would need to carve out an exception for Chrome OS.
If Chrome apps have truly been superseded by browser and web standards then why are they still needed on Chrome OS? If they have extra functionality, then why remove them from the desktop? If they don't, then why keep them on Chrome OS?
[+] [-] pepijndevos|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polpo|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://nwjs.io
[2] http://nwjs.io/blog/chrome-apps-support/
[+] [-] therealmarv|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erelde|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevincox|9 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: I work at Google but don't have any insider knowledge of this.
[+] [-] asimuvPR|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lindstorm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghostintheshell|9 years ago|reply