"tech-illiterate massess...." I am very well aware that our audience is a developer tool and well again, people do not use tools because of the languages they

"tech-illiterate massess...." I am very well aware that our audience is a developer tool and well again, people do not use tools because of the languages they are written in but because of the experience they deliver. You are bringing up extreme examples to support your viewpoint. Bad developers will write terrible experiences in any language. Writing native apps requires a level of expertise that is not with the average developer either. Look at other comments in the thread talking about a "native" app going from good to bad. > "HTML based components..." Well, one of the reasons why one has not come up is that most users don't care about OS styling as such. Again, UX benefits over pedantic comparisons. > "They can perform equally well..." Why is the browser a bad environment assuming the level of performance required is known? I don't see any technical limitation here. CPU/memory impact on the machine can be handled equally well in Electron by offloading components onto native languages if required. I guess then one should always write in assembly languages? As far as I recall, games were written in C and specific parts were optimized in an assembly language. Those lower level constructs are still available in other ways. I am not sure you understand that technological choices are made with specific constraints towards a goal rather than purity of abstractions. > "Qt developers..." And I am sure so can any competent developer through any of the choices available in the market. A copy of a product is easy to create. A product is harder to iterate and maintain.