3 ms·
On the desktop I don't think there's much value in it. Electron is much more compatible with the web, requires less platform specific work, and doesn't really c
by jrsj 4y ago
On the desktop I don't think there's much value in it. Electron is much more compatible with the web, requires less platform specific work, and doesn't really come at a significant performance or UX cost.
- generichuman 4y agoElectron doesn't really come at a significant performance cost? I wonder why Rockstar or Bethesda don't just use electron for their games.
- teg4n_ 4y agoDamn I wonder why they don’t use WinForms or Qt either? Could it be that it’s an entirely different use case than a regular desktop application?
- generichuman 4y agoNot a different use case, all draw shapes to users' screen. I've seen people ship games with electron. If what GP is saying is correct, AAA companies should have no problem deploying CPU/GPU-intensive games using Electron. Leaving the sarcasm aside, I'm tired of people arguing Electron has no performance/memory/whatever cost. It's worse at everything compared to native programs except developer experience. I understand valuing your developers' time more than your users' (which is a bit backwards but whatever), but don't argue that Electron is not a tower of abstractions that has no cost at runtime. That's just not true.
- teg4n_ 4y agoSure they could ship games in electron that render to canvas and use wasm, otherwise yes they are entirely different use cases. Desktop UIs are mostly static. Web renderers are actually quite good at rendering mostly static UIs in an accessible and efficient way.
- jrsj 4y agoI meant relative to React Native, which isn't suitable for that either. There's plenty of areas where native makes the most sense on desktop.