2 ms·
Well, the anti-Electron argument is that you're not necessarily doing it "three times for three times the cost." If you designed your app with the intention of
by chipotle_coyote 8y ago
Well, the anti-Electron argument is that you're not necessarily doing it "three times for three times the cost." If you designed your app with the intention of being cross-platform to start with, you're writing it to have some kind of platform abstraction layer. The bulk of most applications isn't going to change.
That's undoubtedly still more expensive than doing everything Electron, sure. But it's going to produce a nicer application: lower resources, faster performance, working better with platform-specific features (e.g., macOS's Services menu). Maybe that's not worth it for all applications, but if Electron-style frameworks that lock their applications to the lowest common denominators become the norm, the overall quality of software drops.
- purephase 8y agoWhen I say three times the cost, I primarily mean for the web, mobile and desktop. Not for the varying OS distributions. Electron provides a means to handle all of those environments with some admitted drawbacks on desktop. I'm not a proponent of Electron, just stating (IMO) the likely reason for it's adoption.