> HTML is a pretty inefficient way to put pixels on a screen. This is completely true. HTML is also more than a way to put pixels on a screen. I'm utterly sy

> HTML is a pretty inefficient way to put pixels on a screen. This is completely true. HTML is also more than a way to put pixels on a screen. I'm utterly sympathetic to complaints about Electron apps (which I generally avoid because they feel wrong to me too), and to the idea that the web could/should perform better, and even that it is wrong for many applications. But if one primarily conceives HTML as a pixel placement scheme, one is goig to make some poor judgments about what it's right or wrong for. This arguably works in tandem with the piece at some points -- "the web" in general (and some specific stacks or architecture choices) is/are probably used in situations it is wrong for because the related tech is what people know rather than because all the engineering decisions involve informed matches between characteristics and requirements. And yet it reveals some limits about any judgment that the web in general is "wrong," and perhaps indicated the author should have demonstrated more of the wise principle of thinking about what one is getting. If there is one place where "it is fast or it is wrong" is often incorrect, it's in thinking. (See also: Knuth's rules about optimization.)