Electron is flash for the desktop (2016)

Post by xpaulbettsx » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #97

anaisbetts wrote: post #74

Here's the thing. You know what the alternative to all of these Electron apps coming out is? If your answer is "A native Cocoa/WPF app", you are on another planet, the answer is, "It wouldn't exist at all". Nobody in the last 5-10 years cared about writing Desktop apps before Electron came along, there's basically zero money in it, and it's massively expensive, both in terms of actual dev time per feature (easily 10x…

That's nonsense . Desktop apps have been frequently released since forever. The underlying issue here is that Electron reduces the barrier to entry for cross-platform development . That is, it's cheaper to build a single cross-platform application in Electron than it is to build two or three native applications, and you can re-use your existing web experience. I can completely understand why companies might choose th…

Post by positivecomment » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

pikzen wrote: post #143

Etheryte wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The underlying issue here is that Electron reduces the barrier to entry for cross-platform development. It's very far-fetched to call a lower barrier to entry an issue. The easier we can make it for people to get started, the better, isn't it?

"the easier we can make it for electricians to wire up my house, the better, isn't it?" Unfortunately, no. Just as a trained electrician will wire up your house so as to not set it on fire as soon as you turn on a lamp, a trained developer will make apps that use a minimal amount of resources. Especially more hilarious if someone writing Electron apps call him/herself an engineer.

Post by deedubaya » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #145

matthewmacleod wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense . Desktop apps have been frequently released since forever. The underlying issue here is that Electron reduces the barrier to entry for cross-platform development . That is, it's cheaper to build a single cross-platform application in Electron than it is to build two or three native applications, and you can re-use your existing web experience. I can completely understand why companies might choose th…

The cost argument is indeed a moot point - look at all of the major software companies, and you'll see that actual development is nowhere near their primary expense. They can afford to implement their own programming languages and OSes (and some do), but apparently it's too expensive or too difficult to make native apps for the respective platforms? This goes for mobile too.

Post by oakesm9 » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

franciscop wrote: post #68

While I love Node.js and its environment, I totally agree with this post. I don't have the Slack client installed for this reason and only use Electron when I write code. React Native seems like a nice middle ground: Javascript, but compiled to native. PS, I notice that the author is using Ghost for the blog, so I am guessing the author is in the same line (like Node.js but not Electron).

Post by burnbabyburn » Tue, Apr 11, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

carlosrg wrote: post #144

anaisbetts wrote: post #74

Here's the thing. You know what the alternative to all of these Electron apps coming out is? If your answer is "A native Cocoa/WPF app", you are on another planet, the answer is, "It wouldn't exist at all". Nobody in the last 5-10 years cared about writing Desktop apps before Electron came along, there's basically zero money in it, and it's massively expensive, both in terms of actual dev time per feature (easily 10x…

Bullshit. Spotify, for example, existed before Electron, and it was very fast. Text editors existed before Electron, and they didn't require 300 MB minimum to run. Same with collaborative chat programs. Electron is just a way to reuse web developers for desktop development - I.e. a way companies now have to cut development costs.