6 ms·

So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? That's a very unpopular opinion. What incentive does any developer have to do as you say?

by pitaj 9y ago

Endy 9y ago
The writing of non-interpreted code (i.e. assembler, binary, etc), smaller programs that work longer, and less overall dumbing-down of computer use?
- dungle6 9y ago
  Don't forget better UX. The whole practice of UX is utter hogwash. Comparisons between 3 or 4 (or 100) solutions that are shitty at baseline is not honest at all.
userbinator 9y ago
So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? If they are of higher quality, yes. In fact, there are plenty of useful and native applications which many just haven't discovered --- you could argue they spent far more effort on the product than marketing it. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748924 What incentive does any developer have to do as you say? I'm not the one you're replying to, but as developer myself I don't want to have to put up with "this slow and bloated web shit on desktop" either. IMHO increasing the combined computing resource consumption of all your users significantly just so you can make your product a little more easily is the complete opposite of being a good developer. The argument about it being "easier" might be questionable too --- I've been programming native GUI apps for over a decade and for the type of functionality that a lot of these web-app-packaged-with-browser monstrosities are doing, it'd probably take me far less time to write something in pure Win32 and X than download and figure out how to use Electron. Some may argue that the initial learning curve is steeper, but then after that you're a "real native coder" instead of a "web apper" and will be making far more efficient applications for everyone.
- pitaj 9y ago
  So having one extra application - which people only need to use voluntarily - is worse than having no application for that use case?
  - rxlim 9y ago
    Yes, precisely like Facebook "Internet" is worse than nothing. Things like these will bite us in the ass in the future, better to stop it as soon as possible.
    - chickenfries 9y ago
      That is an absurd comparison and obviously the solution in both cases is to deliver something better.
castis 9y ago
The incentive is creating well behaved applications. Electron apps have this awesome tendency to treat RAM as though it's an infinite resource.
- 20after4 9y ago
  Along with Java and a few other runtimes / frameworks that you may be familiar with.
Veratyr 9y ago
> So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? Personally, I'd rather have fewer webapps (which is what these really are) bundled into bloated browsers and called "desktop" or "native". If you're going to put in the effort to write a proper desktop application with native components through Qt, .NET, Java or OpenGL or something, go ahead but please don't bother with webapps with a browser wrapper, just leave them on the web where they belong. If you need a little more integration, do it with a browser extension. I'm yet to see a single necessary Electron port. > What incentive does any developer have to do as you say? The top comment on any news article or discussion forum being something other than "great, another unnecessary Electron app that'll waste my CPU, RAM and battery". And producing a better performing application.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  I use Linux as my desktop and the rising popularity of electron means that most "cross platform desktop app" links which used to mean "we do windows AND mac!" are actually cross-platform, are usable on Linux and are feature-complete and behave the same as on other platforms. Electron has been a godsend to Linux users and it can definitely be highly performant. I've even switched from vim to vscode because the latter is actually the slickest IDE I've ever used. You're yet to see a single necessary electron port? Well, I use 4 all the time, probably none of which would even be Linux-compatible were it not for electron. YMMV.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > means that most "cross platform desktop app" links which used to mean "we do windows AND mac!" are actually cross-platform The "cross platform desktop apps" I'm objecting to are really just webapps that could run just as well in a browser without the wrapper. If they weren't released in a wrapper at all, they'd still be cross platform. > I've even switched from vim to vscode because the latter is actually the slickest IDE I've ever used. VSCode and Atom make a little more sense in Electron because they actually have requirements that can't be met when run purely in a browser (like running a build system). I still prefer a native IDE like Sublime Text but I can see also see the benefit of using Electron here. The apps I have problems with are the webapp ports like Slack, Discord and Spotify. > You're yet to see a single necessary electron port? Well, I use 4 all the time What are they? What makes them necessary (other than VSCode, which I understand as explained above)?

So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? That's a very unpopular opinion. What incentive does any developer have to do as you say?

by pitaj 9y ago

So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? That's a very unpopular opinion. What incentive does any developer have to do as you say?

Endy 9y ago

The writing of non-interpreted code (i.e. assembler, binary, etc), smaller programs that work longer, and less overall dumbing-down of computer use?

dungle6 9y ago
Don't forget better UX. The whole practice of UX is utter hogwash. Comparisons between 3 or 4 (or 100) solutions that are shitty at baseline is not honest at all.

userbinator 9y ago

So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? If they are of higher quality, yes. In fact, there are plenty of useful and native applications which many just haven't discovered --- you could argue they spent far more effort on the product than marketing it. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748924 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14748924 What incentive does any developer have to do as you say? I'm not the one you're replying to, but as developer myself I don't want to have to put up with "this slow and bloated web shit on desktop" either. IMHO increasing the combined computing resource consumption of all your users significantly just so you can make your product a little more easily is the complete opposite of being a good developer. The argument about it being "easier" might be questionable too --- I've been programming native GUI apps for over a decade and for the type of functionality that a lot of these web-app-packaged-with-browser monstrosities are doing, it'd probably take me far less time to write something in pure Win32 and X than download and figure out how to use Electron. Some may argue that the initial learning curve is steeper, but then after that you're a "real native coder" instead of a "web apper" and will be making far more efficient applications for everyone.

pitaj 9y ago
So having one extra application - which people only need to use voluntarily - is worse than having no application for that use case?
- rxlim 9y ago
  Yes, precisely like Facebook "Internet" is worse than nothing. Things like these will bite us in the ass in the future, better to stop it as soon as possible.
  - chickenfries 9y ago
    That is an absurd comparison and obviously the solution in both cases is to deliver something better.

castis 9y ago

The incentive is creating well behaved applications. Electron apps have this awesome tendency to treat RAM as though it's an infinite resource.

20after4 9y ago
Along with Java and a few other runtimes / frameworks that you may be familiar with.

Veratyr 9y ago

> So you;d rather have fewer useful GUI programs? Personally, I'd rather have fewer webapps (which is what these really are) bundled into bloated browsers and called "desktop" or "native". If you're going to put in the effort to write a proper desktop application with native components through Qt, .NET, Java or OpenGL or something, go ahead but please don't bother with webapps with a browser wrapper, just leave them on the web where they belong. If you need a little more integration, do it with a browser extension. I'm yet to see a single necessary Electron port. > What incentive does any developer have to do as you say? The top comment on any news article or discussion forum being something other than "great, another unnecessary Electron app that'll waste my CPU, RAM and battery". And producing a better performing application.

scrollaway 9y ago
I use Linux as my desktop and the rising popularity of electron means that most "cross platform desktop app" links which used to mean "we do windows AND mac!" are actually cross-platform, are usable on Linux and are feature-complete and behave the same as on other platforms. Electron has been a godsend to Linux users and it can definitely be highly performant. I've even switched from vim to vscode because the latter is actually the slickest IDE I've ever used. You're yet to see a single necessary electron port? Well, I use 4 all the time, probably none of which would even be Linux-compatible were it not for electron. YMMV.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > means that most "cross platform desktop app" links which used to mean "we do windows AND mac!" are actually cross-platform The "cross platform desktop apps" I'm objecting to are really just webapps that could run just as well in a browser without the wrapper. If they weren't released in a wrapper at all, they'd still be cross platform. > I've even switched from vim to vscode because the latter is actually the slickest IDE I've ever used. VSCode and Atom make a little more sense in Electron because they actually have requirements that can't be met when run purely in a browser (like running a build system). I still prefer a native IDE like Sublime Text but I can see also see the benefit of using Electron here. The apps I have problems with are the webapp ports like Slack, Discord and Spotify. > You're yet to see a single necessary electron port? Well, I use 4 all the time What are they? What makes them necessary (other than VSCode, which I understand as explained above)?