> just choosing electron won't make your users happier.
Ah thanks, I lost some clarity in a post-write edit. My point wasn't that choosing electron would do that, it was that we should look more at end-user satisfaction and less at often pedantic technical analyses of solutions.
Re: C++: You may be right, but we can't deny that popularity and cool factor has a significant effect on hard metrics--eg, more frameworks, more libs, more components == faster dev speed & iterations, which I think is a good thing. ex: Mac hasn't been "better for graphics" in over a decade, but the 'cool factor' has made it the de facto choice for designers, which has resulted in a bulk of the latest designer tools being Mac only (a problem which, coincidentally, electron & its ilk aim to solve).
Last: no, it wasn't a joke. I know what the article said. My point was that the point of socioeconomic accessibility was mentioned, as you note, in the last line, but for the most part, the supporting data were more asserted as intrinsically bad. If it was a key argument of the author's, I think the data would've been tied coherently to the conclusion instead of requiring a diligent reader such as yourself to farm & cobble them together into a patchwork argument.
So, if you'll forgive me for borrowing a little of your snark: next time you google a word, for instance, 'skirt', you should probably prefer the first definition ("go around, past the edge of") instead of the fourth definition, as you've done here.
To be clear, my thesis is, in tl;dr form: "Anything that makes reaching users in the environments they prefer easier is probably good, but the extent to which this trades off with accessibility is unclear to me."