I would argue that in general, having a lower barrier of entry to software engineering is a good thing, especially for attracting people that might not have otherwise considered it.
Someone wants to build a 5 minute app for themselves and Electron happens to be the easiest way to do it? Go for it, there's nothing stopping them. If that app happens to be useful enough for others to use it, even better, that person just solved what could have potentially been a big deal for that user.
If the people using the app are content with the features/quality and the resources it uses, why does it matter so much, especially to a third party like armchair engineers on HN, if it was built natively, on Electron, or CrappierFrameworkThatWillEventuallyReplaceElectron?
If the app isn't usable by you (and this is a general you, not specifically directed at you), then the answer is simple: don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to use Electron or any app built with it if you don't want to.
If as a user your needs are not met, whether that's due to sluggishness from Electron, incompatibility from having a native-only solution, whathaveyou, then all you really have to do is wait. A competitor will come and take its place eventually; that's what the market is there for.
So far, it seems like VS Code is more than meeting its users' needs, but like I said above, other alternatives exist and will continue to exist, and they're all great if VS Code doesn't work for your particular use.
> If the app isn't usable by you (and this is a general you, not specifically directed at you), then the answer is simple: don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to use Electron or any app built with it if you don't want to.
> If as a user your needs are not met, whether that's due to sluggishness from Electron, incompatibility from having a native-only solution, whathaveyou, then all you really have to do is wait. A competitor will come and take its place eventually; that's what the market is there for.
not the first time we've heard this argument used in different industries. I'm old enough to remember this argument about DLC's, DRMs and games being released before they are finished and get charged DLC packs to finish it. This argument falls apart when everyone starts doing it due to economic factors and complacent users/customers who blindly use what everyone else is using.
If truly everyone is doing it and you don't have any other option (which is just preposterous, there's an ever increasing number of choices out there) then maybe you're just not the target audience anymore.
Businesses aren't stupid, if a decision were to actively lose them more customers than it'd gain, they wouldn't do it. If every single business and OSS alternative suddenly switched to Electron and you had no other choice, then maybe it's you that is wrong about the value of Electron.
But, of course, that's a ridiculous hypothetical not really grounded in reality. In the real world, plenty of alternatives exist for practically every Electron app out there so if you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
And for every one of you, there's hundreds of people that think their Electron apps are fine and appreciate that they can use the exact same interface regardless of which computer they're using.
> then maybe you're just not the target audience anymore.
i see you're moving the goal post
once you have a monopoly you can do whatever you want, thus why everyone keeps talking about EEE. look at what apple is doing now with photoscanning. What they are doing is inherently bad but they are able ignore everyone and go ahead with it because their "target audience" doesn't care about this kinda stuff. Doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't actively fight against it. your argument basically boils down to let the market and customers decide for itself. Over here there are some of us trying to tell people to not support electron because of the potential consequences, and the downward trend of the web as we see it.
> In the real world, plenty of alternatives exist for practically every Electron app out there so if you don't want to use it, you don't have to.
There's choice with password managers. But look at music. You have Deezer and Spotify. The only two free services that I'm aware of that only have Electron apps on desktop. (YT Music doesn't have an app on desktop). Spotify has exclusive content. You don't have choice when apps are the same as services. Hate the Hulu interface? You can't watch The Handmaid's Tale on Netflix. It's that kind of thing.
Someone wants to build a 5 minute app for themselves and Electron happens to be the easiest way to do it? Go for it, there's nothing stopping them. If that app happens to be useful enough for others to use it, even better, that person just solved what could have potentially been a big deal for that user.
If the people using the app are content with the features/quality and the resources it uses, why does it matter so much, especially to a third party like armchair engineers on HN, if it was built natively, on Electron, or CrappierFrameworkThatWillEventuallyReplaceElectron?
If the app isn't usable by you (and this is a general you, not specifically directed at you), then the answer is simple: don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to use Electron or any app built with it if you don't want to.
If as a user your needs are not met, whether that's due to sluggishness from Electron, incompatibility from having a native-only solution, whathaveyou, then all you really have to do is wait. A competitor will come and take its place eventually; that's what the market is there for.
So far, it seems like VS Code is more than meeting its users' needs, but like I said above, other alternatives exist and will continue to exist, and they're all great if VS Code doesn't work for your particular use.