3 ms·

I'm not keen on this decision. Chrome Apps could do more than progressive web apps could do but less than Electron apps. For some uses, now your only option is

I'm not keen on this decision. Chrome Apps could do more than progressive web apps could do but less than Electron apps. For some uses, now your only option is to implement an Electron app. Electron is much heavier, requires more trust because its a native app, makes cross platform support harder and you're missing out on the update, payment and discoverability features of the Chrome Web Store. I'd prefer progressive web apps over Electron and Chrome Apps but they're not powerful enough to replace all use cases yet. I agree Chrome Apps weren't being widely used but I like the idea behind web apps replacing native apps (including Electron) where suitable.

pjmlp 9y ago
> For some uses, now your only option is to implement an Electron app. No, there are plenty of options when doing native development.
- seanwilson 9y ago
  > No, there are plenty of options when doing native development. I was mostly meaning if you have an existing Chrome App or wanted to rely on existing JavaScript libraries. Electron gets a huge amount of hate on HN but I personally see the native route as very unappealing. With less developer resources (and perhaps a slightly worse UI; I think people really over exaggerate here), you get fairly simple cross platform support, an update system, access to a huge JavaScript ecosystem and your code can be shared between desktop, mobile, web and server-side. As a developer, I don't see the appeal of e.g. QT, Java or OS specific implementations at all compared to the above. In my opinion, you're trading a small increase in UX and improved system resource usage (which most users won't notice) for a massive increase in developer resources. This is an order of magnitude worse if you're going to do a separate implementation for each platform as well as now you're going to need platform specific libraries, testing frameworks, development workflows etc. for each OS. Unless you have lots of money, it's not practical to support multiple platforms with a 100% native experience using the minimal amount of CPU and memory possible. If you have an existing web app, moving to Electron isn't a big leap but that isn't the case if you want to have multiple native apps.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Technically, you can have all those advantages with Qt/QML, since it uses JavaScript and runs on desktop, mobile and even web. That said, I never used it. Another alternative would be React-Native, now that react-native-web exists...
    - seanwilson 9y ago
      How popular is it? If it's not popular, is there a reason? I often see comments mentioning QT and Java as alternatives to Electron for cross platform apps but my impression is an order of magnitude more developers/companies side with and see the advantages of Electron instead.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Many companies outside IT see software development as a cost center, ideally outsourced somewhere, not as something where UI/UX matters.
        seanwilson 9y ago
        > Many companies outside IT see software development as a cost center, ideally outsourced somewhere, not as something where UI/UX matters. I work in IT and I see it as a small increase in UX for an order of magnitude increase in cost. I don't see how e.g. making Spotify or Slack into native apps would dramatically improve their UX. In contrast, I think many coders are overly sensitive to CPU and memory usage to such an extent that they lose sight of business sense.
        briandear 9y ago
        When Slack on iOS hangs when I am trying to switch channels — or I get irregularly delayed notifications.. or glitching when trying to copy paste. Slack for iOS is pretty terrible in terms of stability and quality. Writing an actual native app in Swift isn’t that hard and they’re Slack — one would think they could afford to hire the proper developers. It’s hoghly irritating when I’m a paying customer of a fairly big tech company and they think saving money on pseudo-native for iOS is ok. They think it’s ok to provide a shitty “near native” experience in the name of crosss platform. iOS and Android are different systems. They have different devices; it’s ridiculous to ship the same app.

pjmlp 9y ago

> For some uses, now your only option is to implement an Electron app. No, there are plenty of options when doing native development.

seanwilson 9y ago
> No, there are plenty of options when doing native development. I was mostly meaning if you have an existing Chrome App or wanted to rely on existing JavaScript libraries. Electron gets a huge amount of hate on HN but I personally see the native route as very unappealing. With less developer resources (and perhaps a slightly worse UI; I think people really over exaggerate here), you get fairly simple cross platform support, an update system, access to a huge JavaScript ecosystem and your code can be shared between desktop, mobile, web and server-side. As a developer, I don't see the appeal of e.g. QT, Java or OS specific implementations at all compared to the above. In my opinion, you're trading a small increase in UX and improved system resource usage (which most users won't notice) for a massive increase in developer resources. This is an order of magnitude worse if you're going to do a separate implementation for each platform as well as now you're going to need platform specific libraries, testing frameworks, development workflows etc. for each OS. Unless you have lots of money, it's not practical to support multiple platforms with a 100% native experience using the minimal amount of CPU and memory possible. If you have an existing web app, moving to Electron isn't a big leap but that isn't the case if you want to have multiple native apps.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Technically, you can have all those advantages with Qt/QML, since it uses JavaScript and runs on desktop, mobile and even web. That said, I never used it. Another alternative would be React-Native, now that react-native-web exists...
  - seanwilson 9y ago
    How popular is it? If it's not popular, is there a reason? I often see comments mentioning QT and Java as alternatives to Electron for cross platform apps but my impression is an order of magnitude more developers/companies side with and see the advantages of Electron instead.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Many companies outside IT see software development as a cost center, ideally outsourced somewhere, not as something where UI/UX matters.
      - seanwilson 9y ago
        > Many companies outside IT see software development as a cost center, ideally outsourced somewhere, not as something where UI/UX matters. I work in IT and I see it as a small increase in UX for an order of magnitude increase in cost. I don't see how e.g. making Spotify or Slack into native apps would dramatically improve their UX. In contrast, I think many coders are overly sensitive to CPU and memory usage to such an extent that they lose sight of business sense.
        briandear 9y ago
        When Slack on iOS hangs when I am trying to switch channels — or I get irregularly delayed notifications.. or glitching when trying to copy paste. Slack for iOS is pretty terrible in terms of stability and quality. Writing an actual native app in Swift isn’t that hard and they’re Slack — one would think they could afford to hire the proper developers. It’s hoghly irritating when I’m a paying customer of a fairly big tech company and they think saving money on pseudo-native for iOS is ok. They think it’s ok to provide a shitty “near native” experience in the name of crosss platform. iOS and Android are different systems. They have different devices; it’s ridiculous to ship the same app.