3 ms·
> just choosing electron won't make your users happier. Ah thanks, I lost some clarity in a post-write edit. My point wasn't that choosing electron would do th
by bmpafa 10y ago
> just choosing electron won't make your users happier.
Ah thanks, I lost some clarity in a post-write edit. My point wasn't that choosing electron would do that, it was that we should look more at end-user satisfaction and less at often pedantic technical analyses of solutions.
Re: C++: You may be right, but we can't deny that popularity and cool factor has a significant effect on hard metrics--eg, more frameworks, more libs, more components == faster dev speed & iterations, which I think is a good thing. ex: Mac hasn't been "better for graphics" in over a decade, but the 'cool factor' has made it the de facto choice for designers, which has resulted in a bulk of the latest designer tools being Mac only (a problem which, coincidentally, electron & its ilk aim to solve).
Last: no, it wasn't a joke. I know what the article said. My point was that the point of socioeconomic accessibility was mentioned, as you note, in the last line, but for the most part, the supporting data were more asserted as intrinsically bad. If it was a key argument of the author's, I think the data would've been tied coherently to the conclusion instead of requiring a diligent reader such as yourself to farm & cobble them together into a patchwork argument.
So, if you'll forgive me for borrowing a little of your snark: next time you google a word, for instance, 'skirt', you should probably prefer the first definition ("go around, past the edge of") instead of the fourth definition, as you've done here.
To be clear, my thesis is, in tl;dr form: "Anything that makes reaching users in the environments they prefer easier is probably good, but the extent to which this trades off with accessibility is unclear to me."
- rootlocus 10y ago> you should probably prefer the first definition ("go around, past the edge of") instead of the fourth definition, as you've done here. That was the third definition. The first definition was "a woman's outer garment fastened around the waist and hanging down around the legs." /snark > we should look more at end-user satisfaction and less at often pedantic technical analyses of solutions. They aren't orthogonal. User satisfaction comes from a smooth experience. Regardless of how shiny something is, if it slows down the rest of the system (or is itself laggy) users will notice. I choose to run foobar instead of other music players because it's small and fast. > are we further limiting a great web UX to those with the money to afford the latest laptops? This is what infuriates me. People have been talking about how the "free lunch" is over [1] since 2009. About how CPUs have stopped getting faster, and how we should make the best out of the current hardware by learning to paralelize. Yet javascript is the most popular language and it's fundamentally single threaded. High quality software is not about having "a great web UX". VLC doesn't have it (great web UX). Blender doesn't have it. Intellij IDEA doesn't have it. And they're not only extremely complex and efficient softwares, they also have great UIs. Our computers are extremly powerful. The fact that someone would wonder if they're not enough to run pretty clipboard managers and fancy text editors is making me cringe. [1] http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm