6 ms·

Electron gets a lot of stick but you can write good looking cross platform applications easily. Until someone does something better that isn’t single platform

Electron gets a lot of stick but you can write good looking cross platform applications easily. Until someone does something better that isn’t single platform it has to be here to stay

maxxxxx 7y ago
As a long time Windows desktop dev I am horrified to say that Electron looks really attractive as dev platform on Windows :-)
userbinator 7y ago
A lot of people, including me, do not think that "good looking" and "native looking" should be any different, and for that, Electron is a failure --- native applications use the UI of the platform and are consistent with other applications on the platform, while Electron applications obviously look different from them, and have the same look regardless of platform, completely ignoring the standard native UI it provides. They don't conform to the customisations I do to the native UI of the platform, which is very frustrating. There's also the unmistakable RAM usage and general sluggishness. From that perspective, it's not really "cross platform", since you're just developing for one platform that happens to run inside many others: a web app.
- crispinb 7y ago
  I honestly think the days of the cohesive desktop platform are done. It arguably reached its peak with OS X (perhaps circa Snow Leopard), but the idea has been falling into disrepair even on the mac. It's hard to see any strong force moving us back to it, but given the current situation, if I were a desktop app developer I don't think it's something I would consider it worth investing too much effort in.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    Maybe my memory is bad but I don't think OS X ever really had it. The flag-carrying apps (Adobe, Final Cut, Garageband) had custom UIs. Built ins like Calendar had skeumorphic UIs.
    - crispinb 7y ago
      Oh, true of course, especially from the big guns. But there was a flourishing ecosystem of great apps like Textmate, Things, Acorn, and a bunch of others from outfits like Omnigroup, Panic, IconFactory. These tended to fit beautifully on the platform, and not just in aesthetic terms, but functionally with reasonably consistent keyboard shortcuts, AppleEvents support, etc. Not perfect (what is?), and many of the longstanding apps are still around, but the steam has arguably gone out of the platform.
    - Razengan 7y ago
      > Maybe my memory is bad but I don't think OS X ever really had it. This is not a binary question of either a desert or either a rainforest, but Apple's side of the fence is definitely a lot greener than Microsoft's in terms of UI/UX consistency. I was a purely PC/MS user up until about 10 years ago, but I haven't suffered as many befuddled facepalm moments from Apple's UI decisions as from the Escheresque nightmare that Microsoft is even now. > The flag-carrying apps (Adobe, Final Cut, Garageband) had custom UIs. Built ins like Calendar had skeumorphic UIs. However, almost every macOS app has the same standard menus, same standard shortcuts, and most of them support the same OS extensibility features. Even as a developer you just need to build against the latest AppKit and you get not only all the current features, but usually future features for free too (e.g. most of the NSDocument stuff such as autosaving and previous versions.) Compare this to the hodgepodge of different interfaces even in Windows' builtin apps alone, and championing a different API almost every other year.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  Is there really a Windows native look anymore? Every application seems to have a completely different UI style now. The old days of dialog boxes all having the same Winforms controls are gone and now they're a random mixture, even within Windows itself. The tabs in Chrome are not like the tabs in Excel which are not like the tabs in Paint3D. It's all over the place.
  - userbinator 7y ago
    Yes, I believe the inconsistencies started with Vista, and has gotten worse since then, but the parts they didn't change still have the consistent normal Win32 style. The standard tab control looks like this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/tab-controls https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/ta... There is a (probably incomplete) list of standard controls here, I believe the documentation for each one contains screenshots of what they look like: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/individual-control-info https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/in... That said, Chrome's tabs are (at least the last time I checked) actually bitmap images, Excel's tabs are also probably custom-drawn yet fortunately aren't bitmaps (just judging by how they look), and I believe Pain(t)3D is actually UWP.
- mhermher 7y ago
  The only people who ever bring this up are all on HN. Spotify is electron, vs code is electron, slack is electron. I have them open all day, and never even notice.
  - bni 7y ago
    Spotify is not electron
    - bpye 7y ago
      Desktop Spotify does use CEF though doesn't it? Whilst it might not be electron it's a similar idea
- sfifs 7y ago
  Depends on personal preferences I guess. I generally find "native" interfaces poorly suited to productivity. In fact even Microsoft agrees which is why they have UI of their Office products running on a highly contextually customized ribbon interface and visual cue based context menus which use transparency to hint at options. I similarly find Electron based apps usually focus on usability rather than throwing a million option into menus or cluttered toolbars which is the default "native" UI.
krzat 7y ago
Flutter for desktop is in early stages currently, but in theory it could deliver apps that look & feel like Electron apps but with much better performance.

Electron gets a lot of stick but you can write good looking cross platform applications easily. Until someone does something better that isn’t single platform it has to be here to stay

maxxxxx 7y ago

As a long time Windows desktop dev I am horrified to say that Electron looks really attractive as dev platform on Windows :-)

userbinator 7y ago

A lot of people, including me, do not think that "good looking" and "native looking" should be any different, and for that, Electron is a failure --- native applications use the UI of the platform and are consistent with other applications on the platform, while Electron applications obviously look different from them, and have the same look regardless of platform, completely ignoring the standard native UI it provides. They don't conform to the customisations I do to the native UI of the platform, which is very frustrating. There's also the unmistakable RAM usage and general sluggishness. From that perspective, it's not really "cross platform", since you're just developing for one platform that happens to run inside many others: a web app.

crispinb 7y ago
I honestly think the days of the cohesive desktop platform are done. It arguably reached its peak with OS X (perhaps circa Snow Leopard), but the idea has been falling into disrepair even on the mac. It's hard to see any strong force moving us back to it, but given the current situation, if I were a desktop app developer I don't think it's something I would consider it worth investing too much effort in.
- lozenge 7y ago
  Maybe my memory is bad but I don't think OS X ever really had it. The flag-carrying apps (Adobe, Final Cut, Garageband) had custom UIs. Built ins like Calendar had skeumorphic UIs.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    Oh, true of course, especially from the big guns. But there was a flourishing ecosystem of great apps like Textmate, Things, Acorn, and a bunch of others from outfits like Omnigroup, Panic, IconFactory. These tended to fit beautifully on the platform, and not just in aesthetic terms, but functionally with reasonably consistent keyboard shortcuts, AppleEvents support, etc. Not perfect (what is?), and many of the longstanding apps are still around, but the steam has arguably gone out of the platform.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    > Maybe my memory is bad but I don't think OS X ever really had it. This is not a binary question of either a desert or either a rainforest, but Apple's side of the fence is definitely a lot greener than Microsoft's in terms of UI/UX consistency. I was a purely PC/MS user up until about 10 years ago, but I haven't suffered as many befuddled facepalm moments from Apple's UI decisions as from the Escheresque nightmare that Microsoft is even now. > The flag-carrying apps (Adobe, Final Cut, Garageband) had custom UIs. Built ins like Calendar had skeumorphic UIs. However, almost every macOS app has the same standard menus, same standard shortcuts, and most of them support the same OS extensibility features. Even as a developer you just need to build against the latest AppKit and you get not only all the current features, but usually future features for free too (e.g. most of the NSDocument stuff such as autosaving and previous versions.) Compare this to the hodgepodge of different interfaces even in Windows' builtin apps alone, and championing a different API almost every other year.
lopmotr 7y ago
Is there really a Windows native look anymore? Every application seems to have a completely different UI style now. The old days of dialog boxes all having the same Winforms controls are gone and now they're a random mixture, even within Windows itself. The tabs in Chrome are not like the tabs in Excel which are not like the tabs in Paint3D. It's all over the place.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Yes, I believe the inconsistencies started with Vista, and has gotten worse since then, but the parts they didn't change still have the consistent normal Win32 style. The standard tab control looks like this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/tab-controls https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/ta... There is a (probably incomplete) list of standard controls here, I believe the documentation for each one contains screenshots of what they look like: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/individual-control-info https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/controls/in... That said, Chrome's tabs are (at least the last time I checked) actually bitmap images, Excel's tabs are also probably custom-drawn yet fortunately aren't bitmaps (just judging by how they look), and I believe Pain(t)3D is actually UWP.
mhermher 7y ago
The only people who ever bring this up are all on HN. Spotify is electron, vs code is electron, slack is electron. I have them open all day, and never even notice.
- bni 7y ago
  Spotify is not electron
  - bpye 7y ago
    Desktop Spotify does use CEF though doesn't it? Whilst it might not be electron it's a similar idea
sfifs 7y ago
Depends on personal preferences I guess. I generally find "native" interfaces poorly suited to productivity. In fact even Microsoft agrees which is why they have UI of their Office products running on a highly contextually customized ribbon interface and visual cue based context menus which use transparency to hint at options. I similarly find Electron based apps usually focus on usability rather than throwing a million option into menus or cluttered toolbars which is the default "native" UI.

krzat 7y ago

Flutter for desktop is in early stages currently, but in theory it could deliver apps that look & feel like Electron apps but with much better performance.