6 ms·

You mean like standard desktop application we had until the browser took over?

TomMarius 7y ago
There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications, progressive web applications, isomorphic/universal applications and so on. Usually the business case decides. If you want people to make more standard desktop applications, you should figure out a way to make it work for the common Electron app business case. Or stop throwing baseless shit in their general direction just because they've chosen a technology that does not meet your purity requirements. I'm very sure everyone in the community agrees Electron is not ideal.
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  Electron is the least worst technology we have for building expressive 2D GUIs. Carlo and others are just an incremental improvement. Every other GUI libraries are order of magnitude inferiors except if you just want to look like windows default utilities.
  - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
    Imagine if apps would blend in with the host OS! The horror!
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      Sorry but the founder wants his specific UI, I can't do anything about it, my job is to do it.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- dkersten 7y ago
  > the common Electron app business case Serious question: what is the common electron app business case? Being able to run as a desktop app as well as in a browser?
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    From my POI: Yes, and reuse developers and code you already have for the web version.
    - dkersten 7y ago
      Ok, thanks, that makes sense. The reuse developers part I suppose could be achieved with QtQuick since QML is javascript based, but beyond the language, not that much else translates and you can’t completely get away from C++ for anything non-trivial, so it’s not really an electron competitor.
  - afiori 7y ago
    >Serious question: what is the common electron app business case? Easy portability (not perfect) between all major platform
- aurosul 7y ago
  > There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications That is certainly true. But I was answering to > The same as from using Electron, but a step further: less overhead from unneeded browser features, ability to lock the user into a kiosk/fullscreen mode, while most of the code is still reusable. namely _Desktop applications_ Wasmer claim is > Use the tools you know and the languages you love. Compile everything to WebAssembly. Run it on any OS or embed it into other languages. There's no browser involved here, just compile once, run everywhere I have the feeling I already heard it...
  - afiori 7y ago
    > [..], just compile once, run everywhere >I have the feeling I already heard it... If you are referring to java then something to note is > Use the tools you know and the languages you love. > Compile everything to WebAssembly. > [..] embed it into other languages. Which to my understanding apply only marginally to java; especially the embedding part.

There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications, progressive web applications, isomorphic/universal applications and so on. Usually the business case decides. If you want people to make more standard desktop applications, you should figure out a way to make it work for the common Electron app business case. Or stop throwing baseless shit in their general direction just because they've chosen a technology that does not meet your purity requirements. I'm very sure everyone in the community agrees Electron is not ideal.

The_rationalist 7y ago
Electron is the least worst technology we have for building expressive 2D GUIs. Carlo and others are just an incremental improvement. Every other GUI libraries are order of magnitude inferiors except if you just want to look like windows default utilities.
- layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
  Imagine if apps would blend in with the host OS! The horror!
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    Sorry but the founder wants his specific UI, I can't do anything about it, my job is to do it.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
dkersten 7y ago
> the common Electron app business case Serious question: what is the common electron app business case? Being able to run as a desktop app as well as in a browser?
- TomMarius 7y ago
  From my POI: Yes, and reuse developers and code you already have for the web version.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    Ok, thanks, that makes sense. The reuse developers part I suppose could be achieved with QtQuick since QML is javascript based, but beyond the language, not that much else translates and you can’t completely get away from C++ for anything non-trivial, so it’s not really an electron competitor.
- afiori 7y ago
  >Serious question: what is the common electron app business case? Easy portability (not perfect) between all major platform
aurosul 7y ago
> There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications That is certainly true. But I was answering to > The same as from using Electron, but a step further: less overhead from unneeded browser features, ability to lock the user into a kiosk/fullscreen mode, while most of the code is still reusable. namely _Desktop applications_ Wasmer claim is > Use the tools you know and the languages you love. Compile everything to WebAssembly. Run it on any OS or embed it into other languages. There's no browser involved here, just compile once, run everywhere I have the feeling I already heard it...
- afiori 7y ago
  > [..], just compile once, run everywhere >I have the feeling I already heard it... If you are referring to java then something to note is > Use the tools you know and the languages you love. > Compile everything to WebAssembly. > [..] embed it into other languages. Which to my understanding apply only marginally to java; especially the embedding part.