4 ms·
I can understand the author's frustration with popular tools being very simple and somewhat overkill underneath, but I almost take it as a sense of frustration
by traviswingo 10y ago
I can understand the author's frustration with popular tools being very simple and somewhat overkill underneath, but I almost take it as a sense of frustration with himself.
Electron was built to ship products as soon as possible. Most of the time, no one gives a flying fuck if the tech stack is the "right" choice and as efficient as it can be. I'd be willing to bet my net worth your users don't care at all how you built it, just that it does what they want it to do.
In the end, for most companies, it's more about shipping product that sells than spending 5x more time writing it in C# because "you're an engineer so you should act like an engineer." That's not how the world works. And until you figure that out, you'll constantly be left behind by others who made compromises to capitalize on the market.
Early optimization is the root of all evil.
- StavrosK 10y ago> I'd be willing to bet my net worth your users don't care at all how you built it, just that it does what they want it to do. That's exactly right, except "what I want it to do" is not use up all my RAM.
- traviswingo 10y agoYeah...I could do without the RAM munchers.
- ethbro 10y agoThis is both true, but also makes me weep for the state of software development. (Specifically, performance and security)
- traviswingo 10y agoI concur in that performance and security are very important in building software. I would, however, opt for a less performant version of a product if that means releasing it a couple months earlier than the alternative. I think it's possible to build very well performing applications on a tool like Electron, and once the market has proven that your product is in heavy demand, then you can re-approach it and decide to go native or revamp it using some lower level tools.