9 ms·

Electron isn't the end game, it's a flawed, but workable solution to the problem of having to support too many platforms on a limited budget. I can't wait till

Electron isn't the end game, it's a flawed, but workable solution to the problem of having to support too many platforms on a limited budget. I can't wait till we have something better, but I haven't seen a better solution yet. There are not many companies that can afford to build first class native apps for every platform.

rsl7 8y ago
Ok, so wait. If native Mac apps were better when the market was much smaller, what gives?
- skybrian 8y ago
  There are more free apps to choose from. For example, the two Electron apps I'm most familiar with (Atom and VS Code) are given away for free. And Google apps are free. Free beats getting all the keyboard shortcuts right.
  - 21 8y ago
    Many are switching from the Sublime Text they paid for to the free VS Code.
butz 8y ago
Progressive Web Apps are better solution. Chrome and Edge have PWA installation on desktop, and work is already under way for missing native features, like file system access. In a year or so they will replace need for Electron completely. Although they will never be as good integrated or performant as real native apps.
- paxys 8y ago
  Progressive Web Apps + missing features like file system access is exactly what Electron is.
  - wmf 8y ago
    Do N Electron apps consume more RAM than N browser tabs?
    - szemet 8y ago
      It maybe does not mean that much, but at least code memory can be shared among electron app instances if it is deployed with shared libraries by a distribution package manager e.g. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron...
      - wmf 8y ago
        Of course the main markets for Electron are Windows and Mac where it's probably not shared (although MS may try to fix this).
  - discreteevent 8y ago
    Except that you need a complete browser per application and a browser is heavier now than some CAD tools.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Not at all, because I already have the browser. Don't need yet another one.
    - szemet 8y ago
      Eventually if electron gets popular enough you will have only one additional browser per system - the linux distriburion packaged shared electron. (e.g. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron... ) (not sure but even that could use a shared choromium lib - or am i wrong?) It is the same as having shared GTK or QT libraries (both with embedded web engine BTW - so plenty of engines already), or having a shared global python deployment with shared global packages (from these you sometimes need two: v2 and v3) So you will have one extra component per system. In Windows world maybe you will have one additional electron component per app, but there, it is the "normal" way (you have qt dlls in every qt app etc...) anyway, so not much difference compared to other frameworks there too.
- _jezell_ 8y ago
  PWA certainly solve some challenges around installation and delivery, but they don't do that without additional tradeoffs, and you still end up with an electron style app, which is what Gruber doesn't like.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Yeah, but I get to keep a single browser instance.
- devwastaken 8y ago
  Pwa can never replace electron. Pwa will always be in limited sandboxed api's that give little control over necessary features.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    In a future where all apps are sandboxed there will be no major differences. On Windows(UWP) and ChromeOS/Android, PWAs have the same rights as other apps if properly signed.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Where did you find this out? My quick search for how to sign a progressive web app didn't find anything.
      - yrio 8y ago
        PWA in Windows 10 can access the same APIs as UWP C# & C++ apps https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/progressive-web-apps/windows-features https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/progressive-.... I don't know about Android / ChromeOS.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        On ChromeOS you get access to these extra APIs, as it is a browser based OS. They have only been dropped for Chrome Apps. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/api_index https://developer.chrome.com/apps/api_index As for Android, the "What Web Can Do" PWA displays what extensions are currently available, https://whatwebcando.today/ https://whatwebcando.today/
        skybrian 8y ago
        Those are useful links but are they don't give PWA's the same rights as native apps. Chrome apps do use HTML and JavaScript but aren't PWA's. The API's and sandboxing is different. There are many useful HTML5 API's, but they don't require code signing as far as I know, and they don't have the same permissions as Android apps. (The permission system is entirely different.)
- largehotcoffee 8y ago
  This is not going to happen.
WalterGR 8y ago
it's a flawed, but workable solution to the problem of having to support too many platforms on a limited budget. If that’s the case, then why aren’t we collectively here on Hacker News celebrating Microsoft’s decision to ditch Edge in favor of (some flavor of) Chrome? Monoculture is unambiguously bad, so anything that contributes to the destruction of the Tower of Babel is good. We should all boycot Electon in favor of native solutions specific to each platform. Budget be damned.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > Monoculture is unambiguously bad No, it’s not. Like all things, it’s a trade off. In this case, the benefit is that monocultures are efficient by way of economies of scale.

rsl7 8y ago

Ok, so wait. If native Mac apps were better when the market was much smaller, what gives?

skybrian 8y ago
There are more free apps to choose from. For example, the two Electron apps I'm most familiar with (Atom and VS Code) are given away for free. And Google apps are free. Free beats getting all the keyboard shortcuts right.
- 21 8y ago
  Many are switching from the Sublime Text they paid for to the free VS Code.

butz 8y ago

Progressive Web Apps are better solution. Chrome and Edge have PWA installation on desktop, and work is already under way for missing native features, like file system access. In a year or so they will replace need for Electron completely. Although they will never be as good integrated or performant as real native apps.

paxys 8y ago
Progressive Web Apps + missing features like file system access is exactly what Electron is.
- wmf 8y ago
  Do N Electron apps consume more RAM than N browser tabs?
  - szemet 8y ago
    It maybe does not mean that much, but at least code memory can be shared among electron app instances if it is deployed with shared libraries by a distribution package manager e.g. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron...
    - wmf 8y ago
      Of course the main markets for Electron are Windows and Mac where it's probably not shared (although MS may try to fix this).
- discreteevent 8y ago
  Except that you need a complete browser per application and a browser is heavier now than some CAD tools.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Not at all, because I already have the browser. Don't need yet another one.
  - szemet 8y ago
    Eventually if electron gets popular enough you will have only one additional browser per system - the linux distriburion packaged shared electron. (e.g. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron/ https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/electron... ) (not sure but even that could use a shared choromium lib - or am i wrong?) It is the same as having shared GTK or QT libraries (both with embedded web engine BTW - so plenty of engines already), or having a shared global python deployment with shared global packages (from these you sometimes need two: v2 and v3) So you will have one extra component per system. In Windows world maybe you will have one additional electron component per app, but there, it is the "normal" way (you have qt dlls in every qt app etc...) anyway, so not much difference compared to other frameworks there too.
_jezell_ 8y ago
PWA certainly solve some challenges around installation and delivery, but they don't do that without additional tradeoffs, and you still end up with an electron style app, which is what Gruber doesn't like.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Yeah, but I get to keep a single browser instance.
devwastaken 8y ago
Pwa can never replace electron. Pwa will always be in limited sandboxed api's that give little control over necessary features.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  In a future where all apps are sandboxed there will be no major differences. On Windows(UWP) and ChromeOS/Android, PWAs have the same rights as other apps if properly signed.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Where did you find this out? My quick search for how to sign a progressive web app didn't find anything.
    - yrio 8y ago
      PWA in Windows 10 can access the same APIs as UWP C# & C++ apps https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/progressive-web-apps/windows-features https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/progressive-.... I don't know about Android / ChromeOS.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        On ChromeOS you get access to these extra APIs, as it is a browser based OS. They have only been dropped for Chrome Apps. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/api_index https://developer.chrome.com/apps/api_index As for Android, the "What Web Can Do" PWA displays what extensions are currently available, https://whatwebcando.today/ https://whatwebcando.today/
        skybrian 8y ago
        Those are useful links but are they don't give PWA's the same rights as native apps. Chrome apps do use HTML and JavaScript but aren't PWA's. The API's and sandboxing is different. There are many useful HTML5 API's, but they don't require code signing as far as I know, and they don't have the same permissions as Android apps. (The permission system is entirely different.)
largehotcoffee 8y ago
This is not going to happen.

WalterGR 8y ago

it's a flawed, but workable solution to the problem of having to support too many platforms on a limited budget. If that’s the case, then why aren’t we collectively here on Hacker News celebrating Microsoft’s decision to ditch Edge in favor of (some flavor of) Chrome? Monoculture is unambiguously bad, so anything that contributes to the destruction of the Tower of Babel is good. We should all boycot Electon in favor of native solutions specific to each platform. Budget be damned.

toasterlovin 8y ago
> Monoculture is unambiguously bad No, it’s not. Like all things, it’s a trade off. In this case, the benefit is that monocultures are efficient by way of economies of scale.