3 ms·

>I don't think that's a good stance to take. You're probably right, but it's also no good to sweep the shortcomings of a technology under the rug and forget ab

>I don't think that's a good stance to take. You're probably right, but it's also no good to sweep the shortcomings of a technology under the rug and forget about them. With Electron and similar web-wrapper technologies becoming more popular, these issues should be put out in the spotlight and consistently pointed out so that they might be addressed. Brushing them aside is a disservice to everyone, developers using Electron included.

kbenson 10y ago
Sure, but presumably the technology was chosen because there were trade-offs and the developers found it worth while. It's the same argument as writing a program in a dynamic language, in Java, or in C/C++ (or any other bare-metal low resource implementation, such as Rust). Complaining about a program being written in Java because it's bloated and used too much memory isn't useful in itself, if there are no better alternatives with respect to those complaints. Pointing out the alternative forces you to think about it more critically. Saying use C++ instead of Java opens you up to thinking about the choice the developer made in using Java. Perhaps it was specifically to avoid some pitfalls in C++, or because it was perceived as easier to work in. Similarly, saying to use Java instead of Python opens you up to those same considerations. All that's really just a long way of saying, maybe the developer decided that using this system accelerated their development enough that it was worth it. It's up to the users to choose to use the program, and if they find the drawbacks of the developer's choices to be not worth it, then they can choose something else (if it exists). If nothing else exists, then maybe the reason the capability exists at this point in the first place is because of those developer choices, in which case it's hard to fault them.

kbenson 10y ago

Sure, but presumably the technology was chosen because there were trade-offs and the developers found it worth while. It's the same argument as writing a program in a dynamic language, in Java, or in C/C++ (or any other bare-metal low resource implementation, such as Rust). Complaining about a program being written in Java because it's bloated and used too much memory isn't useful in itself, if there are no better alternatives with respect to those complaints. Pointing out the alternative forces you to think about it more critically. Saying use C++ instead of Java opens you up to thinking about the choice the developer made in using Java. Perhaps it was specifically to avoid some pitfalls in C++, or because it was perceived as easier to work in. Similarly, saying to use Java instead of Python opens you up to those same considerations. All that's really just a long way of saying, maybe the developer decided that using this system accelerated their development enough that it was worth it. It's up to the users to choose to use the program, and if they find the drawbacks of the developer's choices to be not worth it, then they can choose something else (if it exists). If nothing else exists, then maybe the reason the capability exists at this point in the first place is because of those developer choices, in which case it's hard to fault them.