3 ms·

You answered your own question. You can write a pretty and functional Electron app in a weekend. To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness i

You answered your own question. You can write a pretty and functional Electron app in a weekend. To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. It's the same story as Python versus C, or C versus Assembly. When C was introduced, the old-timers had the same complains like we do today: why would you program in such a slow and inefficient language? Real programmers (TM) use Assembly, C is for lazy people who don't want to learn and who don't care about the awful resource wasting. 3 KB for a hello world? That's an absolutely ridiculous level of bloat.

anoncake 7y ago
This is not at all the same thing. Programs written in C aren't inherently low-quality, everything abusing the web stack as an application platform – including Electron – is.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  If you had said low performance, you would have had a point. Even then, someone else could say that programs based on Electron at least aren't inherently insecure, like programs written in C are.
  - Quiark 7y ago
    Don't get that optimistic about Electron apps security
rwmj 7y ago
If Electron vs Qt/C++ were the only two choices that would be true. In reality there are lots of ways to write cross platform native apps without using C or C++: Gtk + scripting language of your choice (even Javascript); Tcl/Tk; WxWindows; Mono/C#; lots of Java options; Delphi/Lazarus.
- EGreg 7y ago
  Isn’t NW.js way better than Electron? And they have a robust ecosystem https://hackernoon.com/why-i-prefer-nw-js-over-electron-2018-comparison-e60b7289752 https://hackernoon.com/why-i-prefer-nw-js-over-electron-2018... https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js
gdxhyrd 7y ago
> You can write a pretty and functional Electron app in a weekend. You can also do so in Qt and other frameworks. The fact that you are proficient in web frameworks does not mean other tools are less productive. In fact, being proficient in modern web dev, including HTML, CSS, JS, TS, React, etc. takes way longer than learning something like Qt. And if you go to easier frameworks like Delphi or VB6, you would be amazed at the productivity speed.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "In fact, being proficient in modern web dev, including HTML, CSS, JS, TS, React, etc. takes way longer than learning something like Qt." But there are already a ton of web developers who already know those web development technologies, but don't know Qt. So it would be extra effort for them to learn Qt. Much easier to just use React. The same thing goes for why there so many academics write Java apps for their proof-of-concept research work. That's what they're taught in school and for many that's all they know. Curiously, Python was able to make huge inroads in to the academic community, but that was largely due to having a killer app (Jupyter notebooks) along with having a bunch of desirable tools for scientific computing, data processing, and visualization. I'm not sure if there's anything as compelling in the Qt ecosystem that would be as attractive to web developers who already know HTML, Javascript, React, etc.
OkGoDoIt 7y ago
I still find WinForms to be a very productive and pleasant way to write native Windows apps, even quick weekend MVP’s. Yes, it’s Windows only, but if you really want tight efficient native apps then you’ll want a custom built app for each platform anyway, with a nice standardized API for them to connect to. So I don’t see the Windows platform lock-in as a downside if the goal is good native performance.
jlarocco 7y ago
> To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. That's really only true for web developers trying to make native apps, and only because they're used to the mess that is web development. It's a piece of cake to build a small app in Qt with C++, and it's even easier using Python or Common Lisp or one of the other language bindings. Like everything, it depends on each developer's experience which one is easier for them.
saagarjha 7y ago
> To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. Qt is not native in the way that matters: using platform widgets. In fact, the choice of language really doesn't matter if you're using them right: if you have a platform-to-language bridge and it works, generally the end product is not too bad.

anoncake 7y ago

This is not at all the same thing. Programs written in C aren't inherently low-quality, everything abusing the web stack as an application platform – including Electron – is.

tsimionescu 7y ago
If you had said low performance, you would have had a point. Even then, someone else could say that programs based on Electron at least aren't inherently insecure, like programs written in C are.
- Quiark 7y ago
  Don't get that optimistic about Electron apps security

rwmj 7y ago

If Electron vs Qt/C++ were the only two choices that would be true. In reality there are lots of ways to write cross platform native apps without using C or C++: Gtk + scripting language of your choice (even Javascript); Tcl/Tk; WxWindows; Mono/C#; lots of Java options; Delphi/Lazarus.

EGreg 7y ago
Isn’t NW.js way better than Electron? And they have a robust ecosystem https://hackernoon.com/why-i-prefer-nw-js-over-electron-2018-comparison-e60b7289752 https://hackernoon.com/why-i-prefer-nw-js-over-electron-2018... https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js

gdxhyrd 7y ago

> You can write a pretty and functional Electron app in a weekend. You can also do so in Qt and other frameworks. The fact that you are proficient in web frameworks does not mean other tools are less productive. In fact, being proficient in modern web dev, including HTML, CSS, JS, TS, React, etc. takes way longer than learning something like Qt. And if you go to easier frameworks like Delphi or VB6, you would be amazed at the productivity speed.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"In fact, being proficient in modern web dev, including HTML, CSS, JS, TS, React, etc. takes way longer than learning something like Qt." But there are already a ton of web developers who already know those web development technologies, but don't know Qt. So it would be extra effort for them to learn Qt. Much easier to just use React. The same thing goes for why there so many academics write Java apps for their proof-of-concept research work. That's what they're taught in school and for many that's all they know. Curiously, Python was able to make huge inroads in to the academic community, but that was largely due to having a killer app (Jupyter notebooks) along with having a bunch of desirable tools for scientific computing, data processing, and visualization. I'm not sure if there's anything as compelling in the Qt ecosystem that would be as attractive to web developers who already know HTML, Javascript, React, etc.

OkGoDoIt 7y ago

I still find WinForms to be a very productive and pleasant way to write native Windows apps, even quick weekend MVP’s. Yes, it’s Windows only, but if you really want tight efficient native apps then you’ll want a custom built app for each platform anyway, with a nice standardized API for them to connect to. So I don’t see the Windows platform lock-in as a downside if the goal is good native performance.

jlarocco 7y ago

> To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. That's really only true for web developers trying to make native apps, and only because they're used to the mess that is web development. It's a piece of cake to build a small app in Qt with C++, and it's even easier using Python or Common Lisp or one of the other language bindings. Like everything, it depends on each developer's experience which one is easier for them.

saagarjha 7y ago

> To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. Qt is not native in the way that matters: using platform widgets. In fact, the choice of language really doesn't matter if you're using them right: if you have a platform-to-language bridge and it works, generally the end product is not too bad.