4 ms·

One answer is that you can write a better app, and that can be a competitive advantage. For example, I bought Fork and not GitKraken, because Fork's native expe

One answer is that you can write a better app, and that can be a competitive advantage. For example, I bought Fork and not GitKraken, because Fork's native experience is so much better than Electron-based alternatives. This doesn't preclude you from releasing the app for other platforms: Fork also has a Windows app, with separate UIs but presumably shared business logic. This is how cross-platform development used to be done. It's certainly more total work, but you don't hit a quality ceiling like you do with write-once-run-anywhere frameworks.

klabb3 5y ago
Consistency across apps on the same platform is directly opposed to consistency across platforms within the same app. As a multi platform user, I prefer that Figma, Discord, Spotify and vscode always look and feel the same independent of which machine I'm using.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> This is how cross-platform development used to be done. Not for at least 20 years. We've had Qt, GTK, WxWidgets for longer than that. Those GUI toolkits are how cross-platform developer "used to be done", and to a large extent still is. Electron is not the only way to do cross-platform, and there are lots of reasons why it absolutely is not the best way. What it does have in its favor is leveraging the knowledge of developers who've only ever worked on webstacks. Not much else.
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  Another thing Electron has going for it is better built-in accessibility support, at least on Windows. wx is fine as long as you stick to the wrappers over native widgets; and there are caveats even then (e.g. having to use different wx classes to get a native list view on different platforms). Last time I checked, GTK is still inaccessible with screen readers on Windows and Mac. Qt seems OK; I haven't done a detailed evaluation lately, but I would still bet on Electron coming out ahead, particularly on Windows.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Yes, a11y matters and needs to be attended to for apps where it makes sense. Doesn't make a lot of sense for some things though (e.g. where the main app display is essentially a drawing canvas). Not sure how much better Electron could be in the scenario.

klabb3 5y ago

Consistency across apps on the same platform is directly opposed to consistency across platforms within the same app. As a multi platform user, I prefer that Figma, Discord, Spotify and vscode always look and feel the same independent of which machine I'm using.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

> This is how cross-platform development used to be done. Not for at least 20 years. We've had Qt, GTK, WxWidgets for longer than that. Those GUI toolkits are how cross-platform developer "used to be done", and to a large extent still is. Electron is not the only way to do cross-platform, and there are lots of reasons why it absolutely is not the best way. What it does have in its favor is leveraging the knowledge of developers who've only ever worked on webstacks. Not much else.

mwcampbell 5y ago
Another thing Electron has going for it is better built-in accessibility support, at least on Windows. wx is fine as long as you stick to the wrappers over native widgets; and there are caveats even then (e.g. having to use different wx classes to get a native list view on different platforms). Last time I checked, GTK is still inaccessible with screen readers on Windows and Mac. Qt seems OK; I haven't done a detailed evaluation lately, but I would still bet on Electron coming out ahead, particularly on Windows.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Yes, a11y matters and needs to be attended to for apps where it makes sense. Doesn't make a lot of sense for some things though (e.g. where the main app display is essentially a drawing canvas). Not sure how much better Electron could be in the scenario.