4 ms·

>I got there from thier other article "Does Electron live up to the hype?" tl;dr - It does It creates applications that require at the very least three times a

>I got there from thier other article "Does Electron live up to the hype?" tl;dr - It does It creates applications that require at the very least three times as many resources as Qt, which is also a cross-platform tool-kit that allows you a lot of freedom (specially with QML) as well as native OS widgets using a single codebase (although probably compromising on the HIGs' patterns for each OS). I fail to see how Electron lives up to its hype as a holy grail for cross-platform application development, unless my impression of the hype behind it is wrong.

pjmlp 10y ago
It is just the second coming of Mozilla XUL, just that this generation hyping Electron was still on their diapers, so they haven't seen it coming and going away without living any trace of it besides Firefox and Thunderbird.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Can we have a rational discussion about web technologies without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks on an entire "generation"?
  - talmand 10y ago
    Rational? This is a discussion about hating a language for silly reasons. They must let the hate out or they'll be bitter forever.
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      While there are plenty of things to be said about JavaScript and its ecosystem which I very much doubt you could dismiss as silly, this discussion is about Electron. Meaning, an entire browser runtime being shipped to power a simple desktop appliaction, for a small developer benefit over other cross-platform toolkits and to great detriment for the users. And please, if you believe you are above those ad-hominem attacks, don't use them yourself.
      - talmand 10y ago
        Strange, the comment I was responding to was not about Electron, but web technologies. And exactly where was my ad-hominem attack?
- DonHopkins 10y ago
  And thank God for the second coming! Jesus, it's about time. Electron is much better than XUL along many dimensions. At least it doesn't force you to use XML external entities in DTD files for text localization. [1] You just call the Electron localization function! ;) [2] [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tutorial/Localization https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_localization_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_localization_function
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Not for the user experience.
- icebraining 10y ago
  As someone who tried out XUL back when they released XULRunner, in 2006, I don't agree at all; XUL was this weird and poorly document XML language which you could only use for desktop apps (since no other browser besides Mozilla's supported it). Also, JS on browsers was much more limited back then, so code reuse between the site and the desktop app was much less useful. Meanwhile, Electron and their ilk use all the standard web languages, and JS is nowadays used much more (including on servers), so the code reuse is now actually useful.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    From the user experience point of view they are quite similar. Back then I could usually guess when some "desktop" apps were written in XUL, given their performance or lacking OS integration. Same thing now with Electron apps.

pjmlp 10y ago

It is just the second coming of Mozilla XUL, just that this generation hyping Electron was still on their diapers, so they haven't seen it coming and going away without living any trace of it besides Firefox and Thunderbird.

Klathmon 10y ago
Can we have a rational discussion about web technologies without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks on an entire "generation"?
- talmand 10y ago
  Rational? This is a discussion about hating a language for silly reasons. They must let the hate out or they'll be bitter forever.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    While there are plenty of things to be said about JavaScript and its ecosystem which I very much doubt you could dismiss as silly, this discussion is about Electron. Meaning, an entire browser runtime being shipped to power a simple desktop appliaction, for a small developer benefit over other cross-platform toolkits and to great detriment for the users. And please, if you believe you are above those ad-hominem attacks, don't use them yourself.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Strange, the comment I was responding to was not about Electron, but web technologies. And exactly where was my ad-hominem attack?
DonHopkins 10y ago
And thank God for the second coming! Jesus, it's about time. Electron is much better than XUL along many dimensions. At least it doesn't force you to use XML external entities in DTD files for text localization. [1] You just call the Electron localization function! ;) [2] [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tutorial/Localization https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XUL/Tu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_localization_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_localization_function
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Not for the user experience.
icebraining 10y ago
As someone who tried out XUL back when they released XULRunner, in 2006, I don't agree at all; XUL was this weird and poorly document XML language which you could only use for desktop apps (since no other browser besides Mozilla's supported it). Also, JS on browsers was much more limited back then, so code reuse between the site and the desktop app was much less useful. Meanwhile, Electron and their ilk use all the standard web languages, and JS is nowadays used much more (including on servers), so the code reuse is now actually useful.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  From the user experience point of view they are quite similar. Back then I could usually guess when some "desktop" apps were written in XUL, given their performance or lacking OS integration. Same thing now with Electron apps.