Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: Do you think Electron is good for building Desktop Apps?
67 points by david90 on May 2, 2017 | hide | past | favorite | 160 comments
At Oursky, we built several apps with electron.

We find that it's easy to set up, you can use npm packages. Yet the build size is quite big and it might not support all native features. What's your thoughts?

Regardless of whether the HTML+JS+CSS stack is good for desktop apps... The one thing that bums me about Electron is that it bundles an entire web runtime with each app, even though a suitable runtime already exists as part of the operating system.

Seriously, WebKit on Mac and Edge on Windows would be just fine for >99% of Electron apps. Using the available web runtime would be a tremendous saving both in build size and memory usage.

Did you know that Chromium contains 25.3 million lines of code? [1] Each Electron app is bundling a separate copy of that enormous codebase in binary form. It's a terrible waste of memory.

It's true that supporting the native web runtimes would be more work for the Electron framework developers, and sometimes would also mean more work for app developers... But most web apps have absolutely no good reason to be tied to Chromium, so for app developers the diversity would actually be beneficial in the long term IMO.

If someone wants to start a project that's like Electron but uses the native runtimes, I'd actually like to contribute some work. Let's call it "Electrino"?

[1] https://twitter.com/worrydream/status/857794605076500480

For me, I'd just love it if progressive web apps would have a desktop offline install mode that allowed them to deliver notifications, a desktop icon, and a separate window.

I was expecting this to happen after chrome discontinued their "chrome apps", that the underlying tech would come back with progressive web apps, but I haven't seen anything in that space.

I think it would solve the problems with Electron apps (wouldn't have to rebundle the runtime for a massive binary size and massive memory use).

If anyone knows if anything is happening in this space (progressive web app installation for desktop) please let me know.

I am looking forward to more PWA and I agree this would replace most use cases for Electron, but not all.

If it's just a web app (network, localStorage etc) then it would be fine. But if you need to read/write to the user's filesystem or need to include other executables then we can't run that in our browser. We don't want a webbrowser to have any possible path to screwing with your filesystem or running executables.

There is a flag for it. I was surprised that my website 'installed' on my Linux PC, created a '.desktop' file and launched in a separate window. It works now, only bug I encountered is asking 'add do desktop' while I already launched it from desktop

Really? Awesome! What is the flag? I couldn't find it when googling about for information a few weeks ago.

EDIT: Found this: https://mobile.twitter.com/nolanlawson/status/71266809721643...

Look at it from a product owner's perspective. I want 100% of users to have the same experience. Electron bundling a web runtime that gives the same experience on each platform is absolutely key to giving them the same experience. There may also be security issues to consider.

Look at it from the computer owner's perspective. I don't want your experience if it comes with 100+ MB of redundant code.

Isn't that size arbitrary? Downloading and storing a 100mb program takes the same (or less) fraction of your available resources today as downloading and storing a 1mb program in 1995.

Are you short on disk space? Download is too slow? Is this a real problem?

Download size is relatively harmless; size on disk is an annoyance and a real concern (a lot of laptop users have an SSD in the 128-256 GB range); but memory footprint is the real killer for me. I don't want every little widget to consume hundreds of megs of memory.

In 1995 my computer had 8 or 16 MB memory... Having a 1 MB app running in the background would have been huge. I certainly don't want to go back to that era.

Memory footprint is my big issue with this too. Related, I've noticed chat for various projects slowly migrating from IRC to Slack and have the same issue there. What could have been another irssi window taking up an insignificant amount of memory is now a 150Mb Chrome tab.

To make matters worse, memory growth has stagnated. A Macbook Pro today, to give an example has the same maximum RAM (16Gb) it did in 2010. That's zero memory growth in 7 years for a popular developer machine.

Wouldn't regular Chrome have the same issue? Each tab is a full instance... your argument is against Chrome and web apps, not Electron.

No, it's different.

Each Chrome tab is a process, but they share the same dynamic libraries in memory. Each Electron app is both a process and a separate copy of the dynamic libraries.

If you run half a dozen Electron apps, those redundant libraries will be taking up roughly a gigabyte already.

Chrome splits itself in various processes and usually each tab has a process. But each process is not a full Chrome instance. There's a huge difference.

Would people give shit if Spotify was 100 Mb?

if Spotify were the only app using Electron, it wouldn't matter.

But when every utility and menubar widget has its own copy of Electron, the footprint balloons quickly. And people are actually doing those kinds of apps in Electron already!

Which product owner? Totally agree with you, but the reason why it's delivered this way right now is a technical implementation detail. Electron could focus on delivering an API that abstracts away differences between runtime engines (as most web frameworks do). I'm sure bundling chrome in is a boon to simplicity inside electron, so maybe the distinction matters within electron, but i'm not sure that distinction should matter for downstream projects...

Not wanting your users to have an "experience" that matches their OS IMHO is bad design.

That is not a valid thing to want. The experience is supposed to be different on each OS.

That web runtime doesn't ensure that people have the same experience. You're still relying on the abstractions of that runtime. Plus that there haven't been any changes to it.

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that Electron apps have portability issues?

Well, why wait. I made a repo for "Electrino":


Sorry, it's totally empty! But I'm hoping to get around to making a Cocoa+WebKit proof-of-concept this week. I guess the starting point would be to implement just enough APIs to be able to run the main.js example from this Electron tutorial:


Another direction might be to extend Cordova to support macOS and Linux. Cordova already supports building UWP for Windows Desktop/Xbox/HoloLens using the native HTML+JS stack. Seems to me like a lot of existing Cordova plugins just need subtle nudges to support macOS in addition to iOS. Then you just need a good Linux solution and you cover all the desktop environments.

Then narrow the few missing desktop-focused APIs that Electron has but Cordova doesn't have good plugins for. (It would also be nice to support more Node-like background processes in Cordova and more Node-native libraries, but you would need to find a good balance that plays well with mobile.)

There's also React Native, which can work on macOS (https://github.com/ptmt/react-native-macos). I'm not sure about other operating systems, though.

Microsoft has put out an implementation for Windows, too: https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows

Update on Electrino: implemented minimal APIs to load Electron's "Hello World" example. Code is in the repo.

Only having to target a single browser does make life easier for application developers. It's like programming for the web, but without the hassle of cross-browser compatibility.

It just astonishes me how big the slack install is. It is like installing the latest video drivers from Nvidia or AMD.

What's the purpose of the Slack desktop app? What does it do that the web app doesn't?

Primarily, it sits as its own entry in your task switcher, and can show the number of pending alerts you have. It also uses OS native notifications, though I know that's increasingly possible through the web too.

When I did use Slack to communicate with remote coworkers. I just kept a tab open - with notifications turned on. Most of the time I was working with three monitors anyway.

Now that I only use Slack to communicate with former coworkers I just keep it on my phone.

Isn't this more of a philosophical problem?

Static binding vs dynamic binding?

Bundling everything up so no outside deps are needed vs using everything that is on the system to save space?

Yes, and I wish developers could make that choice more easily.

The Electron approach is fine for genuinely large applications. But I've seen many Electron-based Mac desktop apps where the UI has a handful of elements. The equivalent Cocoa app would be maybe 100 kB.

I understand that people won't learn Cocoa just for tiny UIs, so it would be really nice if there were a mostly Electron-compatible solution that would use the system web runtime which is already there (and probably already loaded in active memory).

It's funny somehow.

They built a framework for, as you say, "genuinely large applications" but it seems to be so easy to use that it's used especially for small ones.

And if you are building a large app you'd benefit from a statically typed language with better native data type support than JS.

OpenFin claims to have remediated the memory issues of electron somewhat.


The con is not all browsers support the same features. Sure, we've come along since IE6 and Mozilla but if I'm creating a web-based desktop app, I want to deploy with 100% certainty that the CSS/JS I used works exactly the same when I was developing it.

Update: I decided to build a proof of concept for Electrino. It can run a "Hello world" now.

Here's the Show HN:


Or even Chrome itself.

I am a retrograde, grumpy, obtuse old curmudgeon, so let me bite:

No, it is a terror. Applications produced with it are bloated monstrosities, gobbling up hundreds of megabytes in both storage and RAM before getting round to as much as putting a checkbox on screen. Bundling an entire web browser inside your program in order to provide portable GUI functionality like what Tk managed more than twenty years ago without breaking a sweat, and at roughly 1/100 the size, yeah, sure, it flies. So did the Spruce Goose, sort of.

But then, I never took to js, I never took to Chrome, I never took to bloat as a way of life.

[edit: typo]

I agree with you and take it a step further:

It is totally embarrassing that programs are 100-1000 times the size they used to be, and slow. I think it shows an overall disinterest in our tooling and field, and it's shameful.

Another thought, however, an application I wrote is 30MB when packaged. On an average internet speed, this takes ~16 seconds for your average internet speed (15mbps). Even on 1mbps, it only takes 4 minutes for the application.

When unpacked, it weighs about 100MB. This disk space costs roughly £0.004 for an HDD or about £0.020 for an SSD.

In exchange for these extra costs, I get to use HTML, CSS and JS on both our website and our desktop applications and they get to share the same codebase. That alone must saves me 50% of the time. The fact people might have to spend upto 3 more minutes to download my application and that it costs them 2p to install it on their SSD is minimal compared to the fact that I can have twice as many features in the same amount of time.

Download is not the problem, the 10s start-up time is, as is those 100 MB RAM usage, even worse if you hit swap.

Why use JS when you can have Lua for scripting and a less annoying programming language for main code? Why use HTML and CSS when you can have a dynamic portable native UI as in Qt?

I smell laziness and cutting costs in those decisions, or rather offloading the costs onto users.

>Why use JS when you can have Lua for scripting

Have you tried NPM? If I want to write every single line of code for my application, I don't expect it to ship (unless it's extremely simple). When there is a library for almost everything, why not use one instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

Have you used anything other than javascript? NPM is not unique, half the stuff it contains is also in the standard runtime of other frameworks.

I would thoroughly disagree with you that there is any other repository of libraries nearly the size of NPM. Take a look at ModuleCounts[0] and you'll see that NPM is growing 4x faster than the next sized repository (Maven) with already over double the number of modules.

[0] http://www.modulecounts.com/

Module counts aren't relevant. A good chunk of them are micro libraries (left pad) that are already covered by anything with a standard lib, half of them are abandoned crapware. I'll take 1 good library over 10 similar shitty ones any day.

We also had libraries long before every language needed it's own package manager.

PHP, Python, ColdFusion. ColdFusion didn't have a package manager until a couple of years ago and it was so bad, I built one for it. PHP Composer is just okay. Python's is a disaster.

You've got a knack for going with the worst programming languages available (python aside) don't you?

Eh, when you know nothing and you start programming, you start with what you can find, understand and use.

I have written Java, C and C++ when I was younger but I enjoy scripting languages more and they have provided for me well enough.

But, let's be honest here, "worst" is your bias for the languages which doesn't actually say anything other than your opinion.

There are such things as taste, esthetics, craftmanship and professional pride. Although of course I'll give you, we all make compromises all the time.

Electron is acceptable for seeding the development of a new idea, product, and/or platform.

However, as the team and product grow up, it becomes less acceptable as users expect more performance by going more native and deeper integration with the OSes.

Sorry but Electron is not the future for me. I dislike the memory consumption it eats up. There is nothing acceptable about a simple chat app eating up 1GB of memory when the identical IRC client I had was using 100KB and has more features and the same client was built back a long time ago.

As for others talking about how there's plenty of disk storage and memory, that's lazy. We're losing a generation of native coders to people who only know about Javascript and never taking the step to learn more about how bare metal works, effectively losing all the knowledge of optimizations, iterations and programming skills we've learnt in the past three decades.

I can assure you, you can stick with Electron apps only for your business but the moment I find a native version of the same apps, I'm done with your business too. Slack, VS Code/Atom, etc, none of them are on my recommendations list and they will never be until they either go native or there's a native competitor. Sublime Text destroys VS Code/Atom completely and yet, the version they've built 5+ years ago is still better than Code/Atom today in pure performance despite all of improvements Atom has done.

That is the right opinion and programmers should think like this, but i also believe that this kind of thing is hard to stop when it makes it easier for devs to churn out software with existing skills and most non-technical users do not really care anyway. I guess it is a reality we have to accept and wait for web-tech based desktop app development solutions to mature. Maybe react-native is the way ?

Technology moves in cycles. We went through this back in 90s and 2000s with Flash, Dreamweaver, ActiveX, Ruby, PHP, and etc.

I suspect we'll see us going from Electron > React-Native or identical and then realizing the benefits of native stuff and back to native code once MS/Apple/other OS try to replicate the ease development process with their languages like Swift, C#, Go, and etc.

"users expect more performance by going more native and deeper integration with the OSes" "the memory consumption it eats up" Most users are not programmers. I doubt they can tell whether slack/spotify are native apps or not.

No, but they can tell when their cheap laptops start to slow to a crawl because the memory usage of three or four apps is obscene for the features they offer.

When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. I personally hate electron for multiple reasons.

First why would you use web technology to build a desktop app? I could understand if their wasn't a cross platform answer like python and java that are high enough languages that even middle school kids can learn to make desktop apps with. Yet lets default to language and markup language specifically design for a client server relationship.

Secondly from my experience electron runs horribly on linux and windows. I can always tell a desktop app uses electron on my desktop not just by the larger then normal amount of resource it takes to do simple task, but because it will randomly crash. It crashes silently and instantly reboots it self and try to act like nothing happen but it happens so often that I catch it when it does.

Thirdly, I am not about to act like I am some type of security expert, but this is just screaming at me security risk. Electron uses at least 4 engines, how and when do they get updated and security patches installed? Can the programmers stop upgrades of these engines to insure that their app will continue running as is? You can argue all things are security risk, but when you put so many complex engines in one app it is bound to make it difficult to keep up with all the security concerns.

I could keep coming up with more and more reasons why electron is horrible solution to a problem that already has solutions. The appear to webs to keep using technology they are comfortable with is horrible reason to justify this Frankenstein of a code base.

> python

Literally the only advantage of this is the lack of DOM related performance issues. Support for mobile is probably a nightmare and you still have to make the website anyways, so might as well write it once. Also trying to combine cross platform, speed, and 3 sounds like it's own nightmare anyways.

> Java

Much more practical option, main cons involve large JRE download and I still have to write my website in JS anyways, so why write it twice? React Native really brings the mobile performance up to par that fits 95% of non-game use cases.

This next statement is not directly related to the parent comment: I'd like to read more about why eletron alternative​s are better (or exist) and less about how electron is slow or some other thinly veiled hand-wavey "bad because js".

>python comment - Electron doesn't support mobile so I don't understand this comment. Their are lib for python on mobile good, bad, or evil I don't know. It isn't just a lack of DOM related performance issues it is also V8 performance issues, chromium performance issues, and electron performance issues. When you stack a engine on top of a engine on top of another engine you can't expect to achieve awesome speeds. And if you are making a desktop app why would you even care about making a website of that app?

>Java Again if you are making a desktop app why would you also need a website performing the same task? React Native is for mobile apps electron is for desktop apps so I don't understand why you are bring this up as well.

Electron exist same reason nodejs exist webbies to scare to learn another language. JS isn't bad, but how people use it makes it bad. I should actually say programmers are to scare or lazy to learn alternative solutions to a problem. It is simpler to use what you already know then to try something else. What does electron bring to the table? A way for someone that know JS, css, and html to produce a cross platform desktop app that is it. You don't gain performance, security, and it isn't the only cross platform solution like Java once was. People use to use Java only because it was the only cross platform solution. It had horrible memory leaks and all sorts of issues that still plague it to today. Yet it was the only cross platform desktop solution of its time. That is why electron is seen as useless to me I know how to program in c, c++, c#, JS, and elixir. I would probably learn python stack if I wanted a cross platform solution to a desktop app.

> Electron doesn't support mobile so I don't understand this comment.

No, but most of the codebase can be reused for the mobile app using phonegap/cordova.

> Electron exist same reason nodejs exist webbies to scare to learn another language.

I hate this way of seeing "webbies" as a lesser kind of engineer. I've been on both sides, doing low-level development in C, full stack on .Net, and now Node.js, and I choose the tool that better serves me at each point.

Many of us choose to use JS/Node/Electron because of practical reasons, not because we are "too scared". You may think we are misguided, and we might very well be, but there's no need to be so smug about it.

> V8 performance issues

Python certainly isn't faster than V8. Maybe in the same class of speed, but certainly faster is not one of it's advertisable advantages.

> webbies to scare to learn another language.

> why would you also need a website

> to scare or lazy to learn alternative solutions

This is exactly the useless, vacuous discussion points I'm taking about. You're literally complaining about electron itself and JavaScript (mostly points that are invalid, misleading, or ad hominems, too) and putting zero emphasis on what alternatives are actually good and why they are great on their own merit.

You forgot about multiple incompatible bundled versions of Electron all around. Now that is a real security issue.

I built Collate (https://collatenotes.com) with Electron and I'm a huge fan. Electron does has its downsides but I think that it's eclipsed by the upsides. For collate, those upsides are:

1. Ease of building and distributing packages with Electron-Builder. I'm able to build for all three operating systems on my Mac, took a few hours to set up.

2. Access to the vast NPM library for all sorts of functionality.

3. Ability to use CSS libraries for styling. I'm no designer so it saves me some time. Collate uses Bulma for styling.

From what I've seen, users are more than happy to have an application that solves their need no matter what it's created in. Most people don't really think about file sizes, or the fact that Chromium is packaged with Node, they just want their problem solved without visual or performance hiccups.

If it wasn't for Electron, Collate would be a very different application or non-existant. I think people need to look at Electron as opening the door to more possibilities.

FWIW, I didn't mind the overhead of Electron when I only used a couple apps built with it. Now that that number is increasing, I find myself having to monitor resources & battery life and selectively killing apps. I have concerns that this approach isn't going to scale.

This is a really good point. Could two electron apps share a chrome runtime? Has to be a way to make this more efficient.

They could but cannot as electron versions are different between every app.

The only good point Electron has is 1. All other points are obsolete.

- You can find libraries for "all sorts of functionality" with ease for native languages - Swift, C#, Python (Mac, Win, Linux).

- In the end the ability to use CSS is harming user because now you don't have default OS element styling and every app is using it's own styling for things like buttons - this is very bad.

> If it wasn't for Electron, Collate would be a very different application or non-existant. I think people need to look at Electron as opening the door to more possibilities.

Exactly. If you're building an app yourself you'd never have the resources to make a native app for Mac, Windows and Linux. Nothing is perfect in software development. Electron is a decent tradeoff for certain projects. Regular customers aren't going to even consider disk space or memory usage unlike many vocal commenters in this community.

>"From what I've seen, users are more than happy to have an application that solves their need no matter what it's created in. Most people don't really think about file sizes, or the fact that Chromium is packaged with Node, they just want their problem solved without visual or performance hiccups."

To be frank, most users often don't have a better performant alternative (outside of maybe a browser tab) so it seems like a redundant point.

I'd say Electron is "good enough" for many purposes, meaning its advantages overweigh the disadvantages. Lower barrier to entry compared to native solutions, developer productivity, cross-platform sharing of code.. Plenty of large companies use it to build (even flagship) products.

The disadvantage that is most talked about is its final bundle size, and I'm not aware of any developments that are trying to solve it. I'm in a project with a number of Electron apps built and in the pipeline, and we're searching for a potential in-house solution, of a central app that hosts/downloads/embeds "mini-apps" that run on the same foundation, to share the same Chromium run-time. Really hoping for a community solution to this though.

There is an issue on Github with the idea of creating a runtime for Electron: you would only need to package your apps and a shared Electron runtime would execute the different app you have installed on your OS, a la Adobe Air.


Thank you for the link, the whole thread was very informative, for the various ideas being weighed and some kind of consensus forming as to the proposed solution.

It got a bit daunting to see in more detail the potential complexity of the problem. Someone noted in the comments here, that there have been countless attempts at solving this "shared runtime for cross-platform apps" idea, apparently with a still unsatisfactory history.

Reading through the thread does give me hope, since the discussion is on-going after 2+ years, which means people are interested in an efficient solution. Seeing the HN crowd go at this Electron topic again and again, always with a kind of emotional "turbulence", implies that this is a worthy problem to solve.

I like that one of the recent suggestions is to "split the Electron", to accommodate bindings with theoretically any language.

After seeing what disasters Adobe Air, desktop Java, and Flash have been, why do people think that they suddenly can do better?

Because progress comes after many dead ends.

They would need to introduce some kind of stable release for this to be effective, at the moment they seem to be releasing every couple of weeks: https://github.com/electron/electron/releases

I used to use linux desktop since 2012(ish) and I remember the time when most of my apps were Windows and Mac only! As a broke university student, I could not afford to upgrade to a Mac just to use some tools!

Electron has made me forget those days! Today, most of the tools I use are available on all platforms and while they do take up a lot more ram and disk space - both are generally things I can buy and fit on my computer and will be supported out of the box but not having those apps won't.

I know it's great to hate Electron because of how much ram and disk space it takes, but for those few on Linux, it's truly made life easy!

I am the retrograde, grumpy, obtuse old curmudgeon of a comment somewhere above. Running everything on Linux for all of this century and a bit of the last one as well.

As you may surmise, I do not entirely agree with you: I have tried the odd Electron application, but I don't think any of them lasted a week on my desktop. It's not just the bloat in itself. Software built on what I consider iffy technologies - somehow I never really manage to trust them or just feel reasonably comfortable with them.

oh I totally agree, almost all those apps don't fit in with Gnome or even Unity (almost all electron apps feel out of place). But imo, it helps make life slightly easy!

To each his own. I'm most certainly not out to stop anyone. And I realise I'm too much of a purist for some :)

I'd be wary of taking HN's opinion as gospel unless your target market is HN users.

I don't like Electron apps particularly, but I understand why people make them. I think that if your desktop app is "the thing" you're making then you should avoid Electron if possible, as it does provide an experience that's subpar. But if your desktop app is just a convenience offering for your product that lives mostly on the web, I think it's fine to use it.

(there are exceptions like VS code, but they're very finely tuned compared to the average Electron app)

It's a complete garbage. Take a look at applications like Slack - they are super heavy in size, memory and CPU consumption.

Even the arguably fastest applications that are built with Electron (VS Code) are very slow if you compare them with native applications.

VS Code is a great example... resource hungry it may be but as an app, it's a huge success (based on the Github extension for example that has over 6 million installs - https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitHub.G...).

It would seem like building desktop apps with Electron is a big boost productivity wise (shorter learning curves, quicker time to working app) than older alternatives (Java, .NET etc, MFC etc.). If that assumption is correct, then it's trade-off against resource is worth it: get working but resource hungry app quickly in the hands of real users vs. take more time building something resource efficient but with user-validation still to do.

Define "good" :)

If you need to have a desktop app quickly (for multiple platforms, even) and it's the difference between launching something or not, then yes it is good.

If memory footprint and performance is a critical part of what you're doing (it's not always), then maybe you should look at a different technology.

I think Electron has allowed a lot of cool things to come into existence that wouldn't have if not for Electron.

Electron definitely isn't the greatest: it's inefficient, duplicative, and makes your app way larger than it needs to be.

With that said, IMO Electron is great purely for the reason that it opens desktop development up massively.

I've written native apps before and it has been a world of pain. Electron lets me use tools and skills I already know to spin up desktop apps. I know I'm not the only one who this applies to, and there are a bunch of apps that probably wouldn't exist if Electron didn't. It's usually a false equivalence to compare Electron apps to full native apps.

If the choice is between an inefficient Electron app, or no app at all, I'll take the Electron app any day.

Electron is the new flash.

While the things built with Electron may be really great apps, we don't need a full browser running for each application instance eating CPU cycles when the applications are not doing anything except sitting idle.

Just write desktop applications if you want a desktop app. If you want a website in HTML/CSS/Javascript then write a website.

Can we please stop trying to jam square pegs in round holes???????

> Just write desktop applications if you want a desktop app.

Yeah ... you 'just' need 3 teams, or you 'just' need to use Qt, which doesn't exactly seem to have 'caught on', and has a piddly community compared to the web & Node communities.

> Just write desktop applications if you want a desktop app. If you want a website in HTML/CSS/Javascript then write a website.

Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse, it's clearly not that simple.

Electron itself hasn't really caught on either and is the newer technology. Comparing it to web communities is disingenuous. Heck, Node.js deployments have their share of horrors.

Especially if your goal is to have a native app experience and not a website in an app. Electron does not really deliver that.

Slack, Hipchat, Spotify, Whatsapp, Gitkraken, VS Code, Nylas, ...

I'd say it's caught on. Only Qt app I'm aware I ever use is VirtualBox?

> Comparing it to web communities is disingenuous.

How? You use web technologies to built Electron apps. The strength of those communities is a big win.

> Heck, Node.js deployments have their share of horrors.

It also has its share of successes, just like any lang/community. Not a useful generalisation.

> Especially if your goal is to have a native app experience and not a website in an app.

FUD. People overstate the 'native experience' argument. Real users don't give a crap, there are tons of apps, even built with 'native' tech that feel unlike any other app. If I ask an average user the difference between Whatsapp/Spotify vs some native apps, are they really going to say 'Whatsapp/Spotify don't feel native'?

None of the apps I listed feel like 'a website in an app'. That's a huge exaggeration.

> I'd say it's caught on. Only Qt app I'm aware I ever use is VirtualBox?

VLC, Origin, Battle.net, Google Earth, TeamViewer, TeamSpeak, Telegram, Malwarebytes?

Also keep in mind that CPU cycles relate to battery consumption which is also a very important thing to respect. Ever looked at the OSX energy monitor what all those neat Chrome runtimes consume?

> Electron is the new flash.

All the contrary. Electron requires a minimal amount of Electron-specific code and its API is open-source, not proprietary. Once a new and better webapp-on-the-desktop framework is built, it's going to be easy to migrate to it.

Yes, from a user PoV the solution isn't optimal, but from a developer, maintainability, lock-in and future-proofeness PoV it's not even remotely comparable to Flash.

Just like the latest discussion about electron, I say: our primary concern is the users. Tron said so.

We should be concerned for their privacy, for their security and for their computers in general. Giving them applications that will eat up their resources as the only option is downright unethical if we remember that our primary concern is "fighting for the users."

I love javascript, I like working the web frontend, but porting the web to desktop by... not doing it, only hiding the browser, is just not the way to do things.

And, by the way, it saddens me that a lot of arguments in favor come down to "we already wrote the website, why do it twice?" That's just lazy and shows a remarkable lack of intellectual curiosity for a field in which being on top of things and updating constantly is key.

Produces slow (I've yet to see one that wasn't pretty clunky), resource-hungry, non-native-feeling apps. Not a fan.

Also, bundling lots of different Chromes in apps which may or may not ever be updated feels like a security issue.

It makes it easier to get started, and you can often kinda-ish reuse some effort from your webpage at the cost of bad performance and non-native look/feel.

It's a trade-off for me, I use it when the trade-off feels right.

My personal take on using electron if the following: If you are creating a big app that gets a lot of attention from the user electron is fine. If you are creating a little tool running in the background, electron doesn't work so well because it often uses a lot of memory. So, building a chat application with electron is bad and your main text editor for your dev work in electron is totally fine. Ultimately, the deciding factor should be your users, is it best for them that you use electron or are they better of, if you are using a different solution.

Something else to consider are your development skills. If you never worked with something else than web technologies, electron is hard to beat in terms of dev experience.

For developer convenience: Yes

For product performance: No

It's really a question of what you value more. Personally, I value product performance over developer convenience. I've recently removed all Chromium based applications from main computing use and my computer has been performing a lot better.

The only thing I can't get rid of right now is Slack due to work. I wish it was native, but I understand why it's not.

The only one I use is VSCode. It's a great IDE-lite, but after a day or so it pretty reliably gets into a state where it's permanently and unusably slow, and needs a restart. I can't prove this is Electron's fault, but I'm inclined to give the VSCode team the benefit of the doubt. I certainly do not need to restart Sublime Text every day in order to use it.

And as an Old, I do believe there's a serious cultural problem, caused by the Web Rush, where the industry as a whole does not care enough about zero/low-cost abstractions.

Python Devs: What would you recommend as an alternative to Electron ? I've heard of PyQT, Tkinter or even PyGTK but not sure what to choose ... Cheers


- Bindings to Tk (Tcl; cross-platform GUI toolkit).

- Bundled with Python.

- Easiest to use but has the least features.

- Ugly on Linux and is difficult to theme.

- Good choice for small applications if you only care about utility.

PyQt (or PySide):

- Bindings to Qt (C++; cross-platform GUI framework).

- PyQt is GPL licensed and supports Qt 4 and 5.

- PySide is LGPL licensed and supports Qt 4 (support for 5 is in development).

- The pixel perfect purists dislike it on Windows and Mac.

- Good choice for large applications where an almost native look is sufficient.


- Bindings to GTK+ 2 which is obsolete.


- Bindings to GTK+ 3 (C/GObject; cross-platform GUI toolkit).

- Comparable to Qt.

- I've heard Windows support isn't the greatest (this may be obsolete now).

- I'm biased and perfer Qt over GTK on Linux.

- Good choice for large applications where an almost native look is sufficient.


- Bindings to wxWidgets (C++; cross-platform GUI toolkit).

- Comparable to Qt.

- Uses native widgets on Windows and Max, uses GTK+ on Linux.

- Good choice for large applications where a native look is required.


- GPU accelerated GUI framework.

- Does not look native.

- Good choice for graphically intense applications that do not need a native look.

My recommendation is:

- Small, utility program: Tkinter.

- Large application: Qt (if an almost native look is sufficient).

- Large application: wxPython (if a native look is required).

- Graphically intense application: Kivy.

PyQt works well. Tkinter is simpler, but the UIs you can create are simpler as well.

I've never tried it, but I hear good things about Kivy [1]

[1] https://kivy.org/#home

Lots of commentary here, including "why not just stay in the browser"? Certainly you can run Slack in a browser tab, but I don't think they'd be enjoying the same success as they have now without having the presence of a full app.

So I'd spin the question around: why NOT offer a desktop app option—considering that electron makes it a pretty light investment for any team already building a web application?

If you already need your product to work in the browser, you're a small-ish team, and your feature set is in motion, I think it's a good strategy to do an electron app because it further incorporates your product into the day-to-day experience of your users. There will certainly be a point where offering a native desktop app becomes worth the investment, but that may not be day zero.

Meanwhile, would love to see google work more closely with the electron project to help (1) use the chrome runtime if it's already present and (2) at least allow two electron apps to share a runtime footprint.

All of this said, Slack, I feel you've proven your model out, so it may be time for you to go native with your product. Do it as part of your commitment to the environment—you could prevent the emissions required to power so, so many spinning fans.

Is there something coming our way like React Native but for desktop? It doesn't have to be tied to React (or even JavaScript), just a similar project.

I really like the ease of cross platform publishing. Even as a JavaScript developer, I loathe the memory footprint. 100-200mb per app doesn't bother me, though linking to already installed Chromium sounds like a good idea.

No, and Never,Since the Electron uses Chromium and Node.js so why not browser? Yes there are something browser could not do , and what I want to say is maybe there is stereotype. I have been using desktop software using web-gui in browser and they work just fine. there need something maybe a protocols that make browser more desktop, but this would never happen since it would give user too many power.

For now all the google-about things would always end up to benefit google instead bring convenient to user. Yes I just hate google, And what they bring to the web(For recent years only)

I think something like Electron should have been made but all I could find now is web browser or game engine.

There are already too many silly Apps on mobile platform, and Electron is just another that silly things in my eyes, since I'm just a stupid and arrogant user

Having seen the multiple-process-resource-hogs that tend to come out of Electron it is easy to dislike it, but I have always wondered about one thing: how does Visual Studio Code avoid these pitfalls? I have never once seen VS Code spin up more than one process or hog memory. It is built using Electron, is it not? Is it some fancy hacked-to-death version of Electron that fixes these issues to the point of not being considered "Electron" at all? Or are they just better at utilizing the tool in a way that works?

If the former, I am on the "Electron sucks" bandwagon. But if it is the latter, the fact that there is even just one app that manages to use Electron to produce a product that does not suffer from these commonly cited issues would make me hesitate to discount it as a whole.

MVP: Yes. Production, complete products: No.

Wow, lots of unbalanced Electron hate in this thread. Sure it's ugly, but it's also an extremely productive and empowering platfotm, that's why it's so popular.

Building a web app and a cross platform desktop app is a common business requirement nowadays. Electron is the fastest way to achieve that with a small team or if going solo.

In many cases your only other feasible alternative would be to use Chromium Embedded Framework or system web views. Those two let you reuse your web app UI but are progressively more work than Electron. Those options don't require packaging a node server though.

PS. I don't think Slack is slow because of Electron. Other Electron apps like VS Code are fast.

I agree, Electron apps are way too big. They include so much cruft whether you use them or not.

I prefer to write apps with separate server and client parts and the client JS/HTML is generated by in-house tools and thus is a fraction of the size of anything that would uses any of the popular frameworks.

In any case, I'm finding that WebApps are easier to deploy and update than writing for native deployment. In the rare cases that I do need native features, I can deploy a local server which can then access whatever I need. The clean separation of concerns between client and server does simplify architectural design.

Is anyone aware of a unificate resource from where to learn about all the limitations of a local webpage versus a served webpage?

Not trolling, genuine question: would Mono be a terrible alternative to Electron for a cross-platform desktop app?

Using CEF in Mono to serve HTML/js based UI over a mono-C# back-end is very feasible, and results in a superior program which answers most of the Electron complaints in this post. But to answer your question, yes, it's a terrible alternative, because it's not javascript, and unfortunately the mode of the entire global software ecosystem right now is for all non-application engineers to provide tooling to application developers that cater to the easy-to-use tools they already know (mainly javascript, with some python lingering around.)

That said, if you work in a .NET shop already, you're certainly better off using a mono/CEF hybrid app. Just don't expect it to catch on, even if it generates superior software.

I was talking about a cross-platform Mono GTK# app, not CEF + Mono.

I suspect Java with Swing or JavaFx would be a better option.

But then you have to write Java.

You could write Ruby, with JRuby and JRubyFX... https://github.com/jruby/jrubyfx

But then you get to avoid writing JavaScript, HTML, and CSS.

I don't mind writing Java as long as it isn't enterprise Java.

I've been on both sides of this issue. A few months back, I needed to put together a frontend for a rest app on the local network, that my boss could use without needing to touch the command line. I'm a fairly novice programmer, but I was able to go from never having written a desktop GUI program, to having a functioning (if not particularly functional) product, in less than a business day, which I doubt would've been possible with even something like Qt. It's incredibly easy to build an app with Electron, and I'd encourage curmudgeons to give it a shot one weekend, if only to appreciate how seductive your opposition is.

On the other hand, my laptop is an aging, refurbished Windows rig with a tiny SSD and all the energy efficiency of a stately Victorian mansion. I really can't afford to run anything Chromium-based when I'm on battery, which keeps me from using any of this generation of slick notes apps (e.g. Collate, whose dev is elsewhere in the thread.) What's more, there are almost no Electron apps where you can choose the installation location (VS Code is once again the exception, proving that it is possible), and the cavalier attitude of some devs when asked about this ([0]) drives me up the wall. So VS Code (and my own toy app) are the only Electron programs on my computer, and I don't see that changing in the near future.

[0] https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/7504 - One example of this attitude

The only real issue I have with Electron, that I don't see brought up when it's discussed here, is the process model.

Last time I checked, each window in your Electron app had to run in a different process. This is a design that makes sense for a web browser like Chrome, but not for the majority of desktop apps.

If your app is simple enough to only need one window, this won't be an issue, but otherwise, I found it a major pain.

To all the naysayers on code duplication (of chromium in this case): Perhaps if OS vendors were to provide common universal API access to graphics interfaces and hardware then we would not need a buffer package such as chromium-as-electron! Not to bust ya bawls, but I hardly think that an innovation as sleek as Electron deserves the blame for other structural inefficiencies in the world of software.

While Electron has it's ups and downs, if the question is wether an app would exist at all on a certain platform by using Electron vs something else, then i think it's a valuable tradeoff. And let's be honest, most people (for example Slack user) that are not HN users don't really care, also there is a lot of inefficient software done in other languages.

Bad idea. We didn't learn from the mess that was bundled vs. installed JREs and if Electron apps become more popular, users will have dozens of different Chrome installations running on their systems, taking up disk space and memory and potentially interfering with each other (that's speculation on my behalf).

Microsoft have a very interesting approach with their Office suite when it comes to cross-platform development. They go through it in some detail in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMoRu5yrVc

If you're delivering what you promised to your customer or end user (without compromising on speed) then great!

As a developer, I avoid Electron apps because of the battery consumption. But that's just me. Your end user might not even know the stack or have no idea about it and only cares about the work being done. So yeah, I guess it's great for something which needs to be there as a desktop app.

From a dev's point of view: It's like how React Native is growing as an easy native app development tool. If a team can focus on one codebase instead of multiple, that's a great thing.

I think Electron is great for getting something out the door quickly. I also think that we need to have an Electron "app store" that uses a shared Electron runtime a'la Steam. I think the Electron developers have previously discussed that, but I can't seem to find the relevant ticket to link to. An app store would be a great way to monetize Electron (though I'm not a huge fan of this idea) and also help promote some great apps, and of course, reduce the overall file size and resource consumption of Electron apps.

The only Electron App which I use regularly is Gitkraken and I am quite happy with it. In my opinion it is not as snappy as a native UI but it is still fast enough that it does not matter to me.

I am a Windows developer, primarily C#, WPF, and Win-forms. I must say I have had my fair share of interaction with desktop applications. Electron is great for prototyping and bringing an idea to life quickly. Like many have mentioned the performance is pretty terrible. There has to be a balance between performance and development time/ease. Personally I can work quickly on WPF (due to exposure) and tend to stay away from Electron because of its performance issues.

(Building desktop apps in native languages since a lot of time.)

While I haven't use Electron, it looks very enticing. In particular the HTML/CSS combination allows to build UIs very fast. WebGL abstracts away the graphics drivers problems (at least in theory?). 2D Canvas is optimized and looking nice. And being non-native shorten the iteration times. Particularly for games it looks very adequate.

Users surely care about download size but not as much as functionality.

Users also care about integration with their platform and matching look and feel. Neither of those are delivered by Electron.

Also that a tiny app does not start for 10s on a strong laptop with a SSD.

Native look and feel is the first thing to go with friendly consumer products such as games. Native UI means "generic" and doesn't convey the idea of value.

Can one serve a store-bought frozen lasagna in a good restaurant? Certainly.

Would that be a good lasagna? Probably not.

Will it reflect poorly on the restaurant? Most likely.

Why? Because they are OK with serving crap.

I only use locally-sourced, artisanally curated softwares.

Much better than many native libraries. I added some extra node modules for some specific calls I needed and it went smooth. I'm now converting a second desktop app because it went so well. What disturbs me the most is the numerous process launched. Neither of them really big. I learned that it's also a benefit. not having total scope of a desktop app when you embed HTML+Javascript from uncontrolled sources.

I see many people writing that it's okay for apps to use hundreds of megabytes of RAM because there are 16GB computers available now. The problem with that is what if I want to use a $250 laptop with 4GB and an Atom or ARM processor instead? Now I can't run your application. This is coming from someone who has written a couple of Electron apps and has deployed them in production.

Totally! Electron is Slack! I think it's huge and unnecessary and would never choose it in my own design decisions, but if you're able to use it for your needs go for it. What an amazing package. It's as close as we have to a universal framework imo. Here's to crossing my fingers and toes that WebAssembly has immutable data.

Considering there are companies such as GitHub and Microsoft (VSCode) behind Electron, I'm thinking they will eventually fix the memory/CPU footprint problem.

In terms of programming and development I think it's great. Not to mention that with JS there's tons of languages one can choose from -- think of Elm, PureScript, TypeScript etc.

The big complaint against electron is multiple copies of the runtime.

It's unfortunate that google has stopped supporting chrome apps as a platform -- this was pretty much the solution. Single runtime + many apps.

It should be up to the community to pick up the slack, and launch a single (updating) runtime, and allow apps to run off it.

I think Electron is better suited for prototyping. I have a hardware/firmware background so those sorts of applications are outside of my wheelhouse, but using a web browser as the runtime for something that's not a web-app seems very strange to me. Why not just use something like QT?

Go one step back: why desktop app?

There are use cases where a web app is not suitable. For example:

- Sensitive data that you do not want to be known by thid parties

- Very interactive applications where consistent subsecond response times are needed

- Applications that rely on data located in the computer (for example from other desktop applications)

Funny thing, Electron is currently unsuitable for first 2 and has serious trouble with 3rd.

Are you asking why a desktop app in general or why an electron based desktop app instead of a web app? I think it is interesting that the other two answers (at the time I am writing this) answer each potential interpretation of the question.

Exactly. I can't think of any use case where I would want to use a desktop app that doesn't have the native performance of a real native solution instead of just using a web app.

VSCode is the only product I regularly use AND like.

Tried Atom and and Hyper and they felt really sluggish.

Ease of development vs software quality for the user is supposed to be a trade-off but I'm quite convinced it actually isn't, and it may be one of the biggest lies of the software development history.

Ugly, bloated, poorly integrated and weird UI bugs, like scaling randomly failing on high DPI displays.

Only useful for web-only teams who have no desktop experience whatsoever. If you can afford to hire a desktop team, do it.

I don't know if Spotify is Electron but it's some kind of embedded Chrome and I'm really happy that it scales so well on my Linux HiDPI setup. The regular zoom shortcuts for Chrome just work. I also love that about Slack. Arbitrary user zooming in native apps is usually not implemented at all.

Try to use VSCode or Atom on Windows on a 4k display - blurry text, text that random switches between blurry and not blurry. Seriously, I had it so every even scroll was crisp and clear but every odd scroll was blurry and awful on VSCode for some reason, I confirmed this looking at it on a 100dpi screen.

The relevant bugs are upstreamed to Electron.

I wonder if HiDPI is handled better by the other cross-platform UI toolkits that people recommend over Electron...

I think Electron is good for putting webapps on the desktop. The disadvantages of not being native shows up all over the place, unfortunately. Slow, memory hogs, CPU hogs... they're a mess.

What do you guys think about "8th"?


Answering myself: $$$.

I think it's a great fit, provided the resource-usage (which is likely to be high) of the app is justified.

I can't say that I'm not a fan, I'm a hater who rolls his eyes off anything built with Electron.

Electron makes Java looks good!

You're way better off not writing a GUI than using electron for it.

good in that it the easiest option for moderm developers to get something done? yes. but it is horribly inefficient and we the industry should provide a better tool than this nonsense

> easiest option for moderm developers

for modern [web] developers.

Contrary to what one might think by reading tech blogs and HN, developers come in more varieties than just "web" and "wizard".


No. The current iteration of Kotlin Native doesn't target Windows due to some peculiarities in it's exception handling mechanism. And Windows is the #1 platform for desktop apps. As much as I wish I could reuse our mobile Kotlin code in our desktop app, that isn't very practical at the moment.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact