top | item 39137515

(no title)

tanx16 | 2 years ago

In defense of the companies that do this - making native apps is extremely expensive compared to just using Electron. If you want to have a native app for Mac and Windows and a website, that's 3 separate frontends that you have to propagate changes across. This triples all the work that you typically have to do (UX changes, platform-specific bugfixes, etc), and getting some fullstack developers are cheaper than hiring Mac/Windows specialists.

I think HN users are in the minority of users who seriously care about speed/performance. Electron is good enough for pretty much everyone else, and it's clearly working well for for Discord and Slack. It makes more sense IMO to invest time in improving Electron efficiency rather than telling companies to just avoid it.

discuss

order

viraptor|2 years ago

Avalonia https://avaloniaui.net/ QML https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qmlapplications.html and other options exist. The choice is not between Electron or native. There's lots of options in between "everything native from scratch" and "ship the whole browser".

Also for many electron apps you're going to write a native component too.

alwayslikethis|2 years ago

By the point you are using QML I don't think it's actually that much lighter than Electron. QtWidgets is probably justifiably better in this regard. Not all electron apps have to be as bloated as Slack, for example. It's possible to design sane applications.

MichaelZuo|2 years ago

For paid software at least, it would be a silly strategy.

The point of buying software on the Mac is that it is tailored for the specific environment. Someone who doesn't care about any of that wouldn't even be a potential customer, since they wouldn't even use Macs often enough to consider buying anything.

At most it would only be attracting customers who are forced to buy that software because there are no alternatives.