4 ms·

They are a small non-profit dev group, and resource wise it's probably not worth it for them. You could indirectly solve this problem by making some sort of el

They are a small non-profit dev group, and resource wise it's probably not worth it for them. You could indirectly solve this problem by making some sort of electron multiplexer that could take multiple electron apps and make them share the same electron host browser, achieving the same thing you have now. I personally just use a bluetooth keyboard and my phone. I get a native app, keyboard typing and nothing hogging resources on my computer.

ezekg 9y ago
The issue with doing that though is that most Electron apps don’t use the same version of Electron. I have apps I’ve built that are still running pre-v1 because updating has been too much of a headache.
- Nition 9y ago
  Like DLL Hell all over again.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    I can't help shake that DLL and similar is a symptom of a culture of lax backwards compatibility upstream.
    - jacobush 9y ago
      Microsoft tried to be backwards compatible with msvcrt.dll . It’s just too much inertia. Also you need to be bug for bug compatible or you may break some old app. Apps may even depend upon behaviour you didn’t know was there.
      - digi_owl 9y ago
        Yes there is a point of diminishing return. But all too often these days it feels like projects are not ever trying.
        jacobush 9y ago
        Maybe because it's not clear there is much to had by trying. The pendulum is currently in swing the other way - see macOS ".app" folders, in effect statically linking apps. And the various Linux initiatives to similar effect.
        digi_owl 9y ago
        Apple has been doing that thing for ages. And much of the stuff on the Linux side seems to be driven by upstream (Flatpak in particular has come out of the Gnome camp), and is riding the "containerization fever".
tomc1985 9y ago
Or they could have written the app in .Net, JavaFX, QT, GTK, or any of the other perfectly good languages and frameworks out there

ezekg 9y ago

The issue with doing that though is that most Electron apps don’t use the same version of Electron. I have apps I’ve built that are still running pre-v1 because updating has been too much of a headache.

Nition 9y ago
Like DLL Hell all over again.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  I can't help shake that DLL and similar is a symptom of a culture of lax backwards compatibility upstream.
  - jacobush 9y ago
    Microsoft tried to be backwards compatible with msvcrt.dll . It’s just too much inertia. Also you need to be bug for bug compatible or you may break some old app. Apps may even depend upon behaviour you didn’t know was there.
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      Yes there is a point of diminishing return. But all too often these days it feels like projects are not ever trying.
      - jacobush 9y ago
        Maybe because it's not clear there is much to had by trying. The pendulum is currently in swing the other way - see macOS ".app" folders, in effect statically linking apps. And the various Linux initiatives to similar effect.
        digi_owl 9y ago
        Apple has been doing that thing for ages. And much of the stuff on the Linux side seems to be driven by upstream (Flatpak in particular has come out of the Gnome camp), and is riding the "containerization fever".

tomc1985 9y ago

Or they could have written the app in .Net, JavaFX, QT, GTK, or any of the other perfectly good languages and frameworks out there