5 ms·

> Electron is the solution when a developer values themselves over their customers. Now, you can make an argument for that, such as getting your minimum viable

> Electron is the solution when a developer values themselves over their customers. Now, you can make an argument for that, such as getting your minimum viable product out to market quickly. Over time, as the app develops, the attitude of happily giving your user lower UX quality and wasteful applications is harder and harder to justify ethically, though I admit that's only true if predicated on a foundation that you should respect your customer or have pride in your work. You're entitled to hold this opinion but preaching it as if it is an objective truth and thereby disrespecting other developers is just obnoxious. Luckily the users can decide for themselves what is unethical or not. I have 5 electron apps open right now (Spotify, Slack, Figma, VS Code and Notion) and I find it absolutely absurd calling the devs unethical because of their choice. They have provided me with some fantastic value. Is it great that they take up ~100MB of memory each? No but it's not even close to as big of a problem as some devs try to make it out to be. 8 gigs of RAM is around 30 bucks. Get off your high horse.

ubercow13 7y ago
The RAM thing is disingenous. Even on a desktop it could be more expensive than that to add more RAM, say if all your memory slots are populated. If you have a Macbook with soldered RAM, it could cost you a new laptop and thousands of dollars to get more RAM. But I guess Spotify is worth it.
- autoconfig 7y ago
  Nowhere did I mention upgrading. The example was meant to give a general estimation of how much RAM costs and establish a frame of reference for statements like "huge memory impact". If RAM still cost say $100 per GB the situation would be entirely different.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    I don't see how that's relevant. Upgrading is the point - previously the user's PC was sufficient, and now it is not as it is runing slow. Now the user has to buy a new computer. In the past they might have to do this to use the lastest games or such. Now it's necessary in order to run Spotify and Slack.
ginko 7y ago
> Luckily the users can decide for themselves what is unethical or not Do we? I run Slack and Spotify, but it's not like I have a choice since there's no native version for Linux.
- vintagedave 7y ago
  Exactly.
vintagedave 7y ago
I'll ignore the "obnoxious" and "Get off your high horse" comments. Despite your tone I think you have a good point that's worth addressing. > Luckily the users can decide for themselves what is unethical or not. ... They have provided me with some fantastic value. Is it great that they take up ~100MB of memory each? No but it's not even close to as big of a problem as some devs try to make it out to be. Right now I have Slack running on my Mac. The Slack processes and memory usage are: * Slack Helper (Renderer): 384.5 MB * Slack Helper (Renderer): 168.4 MB * Slack: 134.2MB That's a sum total of 687.1MB for a chat client. Now, my memory resources are limited. Sure, I have virtual memory etc etc, but there are costs using anything paged out. Importantly, there are apps that I want to have memory available for: multiple virtual machines where taking several gigabytes is expected and a _good_ use of memory; image editors that genuinely require a lot of RAM. The key here is (a) resources are finite; (b) some apps genuinely need memory; (c) some apps are valued (by the user) in terms of memory higher than others. My machine is for me to use, not a third party to misuse or squander. So why should I be happy with 687.1MB of _my_ memory used by a chat client, when a competent development team writing a native app could use a fraction of that and give me a better native user experience? One point you may not have realised is that yes, memory has grown and is cheap, but the advantage of having more resources is to do more. I'll repeat that: _having more resources should allow us to do more_. Imagine that an app on my modern Nvidia graphics card with, say, 8GB of RAM used all that RAM and GPU power to achieve the graphics from my Riva TNT from 1999. Would you expect me to be happy with that, or would you expect me to not be impressed by the graphics apps using that card? More, while memory is cheap for us, and many HN readers can probably drop thousands of USD on a new 16 or 32GB latest-model MBP, not everyone can. Many people use old computers, cheap computers, ones that cost $300 and come with 3GB of RAM and a 32-bit copy of Windows. Or they're using their laptop from 2011, because it still runs and money doesn't flow. They use those as best they can. And it's... privileged? I can't quite find the word, but I think we as developers should write our apps for them too. There is also the matter of professional pride or self-respect. Could I, as a developer, be satisfied and feel I was doing a good job with my work on Slack? Did I "do it right", can I be proud of my work? Maybe, because it's useful and polished, but to feel I'd done a good job I'd have to have a very different set of values in terms of how I thought of my customers. I use Slack because it's a team tool and they got to market with a cross-platform app early and/or with good marketing, and are now the default. Years later, they still use the same client. Someone in Slack HQ has made the decision that the improved user experience and respect for their user's resources is not worth the financial and support cost of developing a macOS native client. That's their prerogative, but you shouldn't expect me to like it. I'd have a lot more respect for Slack and Slack development (or management) team if they produced an app that 'Did It Right', that was built on the principle that the machine Slack runs on belongs to their customer, not to them.

ubercow13 7y ago

The RAM thing is disingenous. Even on a desktop it could be more expensive than that to add more RAM, say if all your memory slots are populated. If you have a Macbook with soldered RAM, it could cost you a new laptop and thousands of dollars to get more RAM. But I guess Spotify is worth it.

autoconfig 7y ago
Nowhere did I mention upgrading. The example was meant to give a general estimation of how much RAM costs and establish a frame of reference for statements like "huge memory impact". If RAM still cost say $100 per GB the situation would be entirely different.
- ubercow13 7y ago
  I don't see how that's relevant. Upgrading is the point - previously the user's PC was sufficient, and now it is not as it is runing slow. Now the user has to buy a new computer. In the past they might have to do this to use the lastest games or such. Now it's necessary in order to run Spotify and Slack.

ginko 7y ago

> Luckily the users can decide for themselves what is unethical or not Do we? I run Slack and Spotify, but it's not like I have a choice since there's no native version for Linux.

vintagedave 7y ago
Exactly.

vintagedave 7y ago

I'll ignore the "obnoxious" and "Get off your high horse" comments. Despite your tone I think you have a good point that's worth addressing. > Luckily the users can decide for themselves what is unethical or not. ... They have provided me with some fantastic value. Is it great that they take up ~100MB of memory each? No but it's not even close to as big of a problem as some devs try to make it out to be. Right now I have Slack running on my Mac. The Slack processes and memory usage are: * Slack Helper (Renderer): 384.5 MB * Slack Helper (Renderer): 168.4 MB * Slack: 134.2MB That's a sum total of 687.1MB for a chat client. Now, my memory resources are limited. Sure, I have virtual memory etc etc, but there are costs using anything paged out. Importantly, there are apps that I want to have memory available for: multiple virtual machines where taking several gigabytes is expected and a _good_ use of memory; image editors that genuinely require a lot of RAM. The key here is (a) resources are finite; (b) some apps genuinely need memory; (c) some apps are valued (by the user) in terms of memory higher than others. My machine is for me to use, not a third party to misuse or squander. So why should I be happy with 687.1MB of _my_ memory used by a chat client, when a competent development team writing a native app could use a fraction of that and give me a better native user experience? One point you may not have realised is that yes, memory has grown and is cheap, but the advantage of having more resources is to do more. I'll repeat that: _having more resources should allow us to do more_. Imagine that an app on my modern Nvidia graphics card with, say, 8GB of RAM used all that RAM and GPU power to achieve the graphics from my Riva TNT from 1999. Would you expect me to be happy with that, or would you expect me to not be impressed by the graphics apps using that card? More, while memory is cheap for us, and many HN readers can probably drop thousands of USD on a new 16 or 32GB latest-model MBP, not everyone can. Many people use old computers, cheap computers, ones that cost $300 and come with 3GB of RAM and a 32-bit copy of Windows. Or they're using their laptop from 2011, because it still runs and money doesn't flow. They use those as best they can. And it's... privileged? I can't quite find the word, but I think we as developers should write our apps for them too. There is also the matter of professional pride or self-respect. Could I, as a developer, be satisfied and feel I was doing a good job with my work on Slack? Did I "do it right", can I be proud of my work? Maybe, because it's useful and polished, but to feel I'd done a good job I'd have to have a very different set of values in terms of how I thought of my customers. I use Slack because it's a team tool and they got to market with a cross-platform app early and/or with good marketing, and are now the default. Years later, they still use the same client. Someone in Slack HQ has made the decision that the improved user experience and respect for their user's resources is not worth the financial and support cost of developing a macOS native client. That's their prerogative, but you shouldn't expect me to like it. I'd have a lot more respect for Slack and Slack development (or management) team if they produced an app that 'Did It Right', that was built on the principle that the machine Slack runs on belongs to their customer, not to them.