I'm a big JS guy, believe me, but I wouldn't call a chat app using "only" 800MB of RAM a "win." Sorry to the guys who worked hard on this.
EDIT: Not defending Slack's choice of JS, or the consequences of that choice on its memory footprint, CPU utilization, or excess consumption of my battery in any way, but it's not purely a matter of "which one is the most efficient/performant/whatever?".
.NET Micro Framework | Apache 2.0 | Win+Bare Metal
.NET Core | MIT License | Win+macOS+Linux(x64+armhf)
Xamarin | Proprietary | Android, iOS, and Windows
mono | MIT License |
Mac OS X, iOS, tvOS, watchOS
BSD - OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD
Sony PlayStation 3
Sony PlayStation 4
Of course "having a runtime" is not the same thing as "having a good way to write cross-platform applications".
Are those runtimes all bytecode compatible? Or is that another layer of developer cognitive burden that the more efficient/performant/whatever choice entails, atop the whole "having a good way to write cross-platform applications" tangle?
This is what I don't want, I want it to look like every other desktop app, I want to be able to set the theme of my OS and have every app adopt it, I don't want every piece of software thinking it's special and looking different.
> Harder to work with than CSS.
What native technologies have you used? Many are easier than css+html and look native by default.
Harder for a web developer for the first two weeks. UI builders are more suitable for making app layouts than CSS.
> Harder to align look of web and desktop.
Thousands of mobile apps do it without much trouble.
Meanwhile, Doist is a smaller company but they made Twist clients native because they care about their customers.
It's a problem, but is it an actual problem..?
But how much do you have left? Is RAM in computers to sit there, or to be used?
I get it, but all the fuss seems exaggerated to me.