4 ms·

Ain't it ironic? From all the excellent desktop oriented frameworks we have, developers and users seem to prefer cross-platform compatibility that web techologi

by high_5 6y ago

Ain't it ironic? From all the excellent desktop oriented frameworks we have, developers and users seem to prefer cross-platform compatibility that web techologies enable. Consistent UX seems to be winning over all the technological superiority, performance, or personal preferences that developers have. And I don't like the CPU hogging Electron apps too.

buran77 6y ago
> developers and users seem to prefer cross-platform compatibility that web techologies enable Users don't care about the technology under the hood, and the compatibility can be achieved in any number of ways not just one bloated framework. Developers use this because it makes their life and job easier. But it's still the users who foot the bill one way or another. It's as compromised as basing every road vehicle on an 18-wheeler platform because this provides the compatibility between all transportation types, a truck can be used for commuting but a subcompact can't be used for freight. Then you ask the drivers to foot the bill for the extra resource consumption or adjusting the infrastructure to accommodate the new and improved "cross-platform" vehicle.
luckylion 6y ago
Do users really care about cross platform (as in Windows, OS X, Linux, not Desktop/mobile) consistency? I believe a lot of the appeal of electron is that e.g. Linux users gets a version at all, which they wouldn't for plenty of products if it would have to be custom built. Most users don't constantly switch the OS platform, consistency across OSes is of little importance to them.
- notagoodidea 6y ago
  Most users don't have to switch between platforms but those who are obligated to do like I was, consistency cross-platform is removing a level of friction. Most of the time $work provides me Windows and I run my personal laptops on Linux (mostly Fedora) for the last 10 years. Some of my colleagues were running OS X. It was messy to switch context all the time to explain, learn or replicate stuffs when you are not in a IT/SE environment or even tech-savvy places. One lab we had people on Windows/OS X/various Linux distributions for office desktops and calculation servers on Linux distributions. When software are not consistent across platforms, it results on a lot of friction and lost time in meaningless conversations about "How to do X/Y". The only time I am ok with inconsistent cross-platform is between desktop/mobile because the UX and means of interaction are fundamentally different. Electron is a middle ground (that if I can avoid it is better) but sometimes ease to use prevail on ressource-hungry applications. The other alternatives (imgui, vulkan, etc.) seems complicated at best and I am not familiar in of with GTK/Qt port on Windows/OS X to know if they are a pain in the ass to develop with.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's a good point, developers/sysadmins/IT and adjacent jobs in general may be a sizable exception. Most "normal" users are usually running very homogeneous systems (the average office worker doesn't get to choose whether they want a Mac Book, a Windows PC or a Linux workstation), where the difference would only be between work & private computer use - but I think, most people (again, developers and maybe designers excluded) have little overlap in the tools they use at work and at home. Electron is the native-ish sequel to the everything-is-a-web-app movement, I suppose. That has similar motivations (also makes everything no-install, super portable), and for plenty of tasks it's good enough, as computers these days are massively over-powered for lots of general tasks.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
Users aren’t being asked what they prefer, companies are forcing Electron web tech on users without giving them a choice. Example: 1Password just announced a beta Linux client, and it’s going to be Electron. Were users polled about this?

by high_5 6y ago

buran77 6y ago

> developers and users seem to prefer cross-platform compatibility that web techologies enable Users don't care about the technology under the hood, and the compatibility can be achieved in any number of ways not just one bloated framework. Developers use this because it makes their life and job easier. But it's still the users who foot the bill one way or another. It's as compromised as basing every road vehicle on an 18-wheeler platform because this provides the compatibility between all transportation types, a truck can be used for commuting but a subcompact can't be used for freight. Then you ask the drivers to foot the bill for the extra resource consumption or adjusting the infrastructure to accommodate the new and improved "cross-platform" vehicle.

luckylion 6y ago

Do users really care about cross platform (as in Windows, OS X, Linux, not Desktop/mobile) consistency? I believe a lot of the appeal of electron is that e.g. Linux users gets a version at all, which they wouldn't for plenty of products if it would have to be custom built. Most users don't constantly switch the OS platform, consistency across OSes is of little importance to them.

notagoodidea 6y ago
Most users don't have to switch between platforms but those who are obligated to do like I was, consistency cross-platform is removing a level of friction. Most of the time $work provides me Windows and I run my personal laptops on Linux (mostly Fedora) for the last 10 years. Some of my colleagues were running OS X. It was messy to switch context all the time to explain, learn or replicate stuffs when you are not in a IT/SE environment or even tech-savvy places. One lab we had people on Windows/OS X/various Linux distributions for office desktops and calculation servers on Linux distributions. When software are not consistent across platforms, it results on a lot of friction and lost time in meaningless conversations about "How to do X/Y". The only time I am ok with inconsistent cross-platform is between desktop/mobile because the UX and means of interaction are fundamentally different. Electron is a middle ground (that if I can avoid it is better) but sometimes ease to use prevail on ressource-hungry applications. The other alternatives (imgui, vulkan, etc.) seems complicated at best and I am not familiar in of with GTK/Qt port on Windows/OS X to know if they are a pain in the ass to develop with.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's a good point, developers/sysadmins/IT and adjacent jobs in general may be a sizable exception. Most "normal" users are usually running very homogeneous systems (the average office worker doesn't get to choose whether they want a Mac Book, a Windows PC or a Linux workstation), where the difference would only be between work & private computer use - but I think, most people (again, developers and maybe designers excluded) have little overlap in the tools they use at work and at home. Electron is the native-ish sequel to the everything-is-a-web-app movement, I suppose. That has similar motivations (also makes everything no-install, super portable), and for plenty of tasks it's good enough, as computers these days are massively over-powered for lots of general tasks.

ComputerGuru 6y ago

Users aren’t being asked what they prefer, companies are forcing Electron web tech on users without giving them a choice. Example: 1Password just announced a beta Linux client, and it’s going to be Electron. Were users polled about this?