Your entire defence of electron is that your $1800 computer runs electron programs fine, that it allows you to throw software together very quickly, and that eventually normal people will also have computers as shiny as yours, so the excessive resource consumption doesn't matter.
That's a really bad and selfish position to take, both from an engineering and an ecological standpoint, and utterly hostile to the user also.
Most people don't have $1800 computers, they have closer to $500 computers. What inevitably happens is that by the time average joe's computer catches up to your performance, you yourself have also kept moving, and the software you write has bloated to match.
That electron allows you to throw together your software in less time is no concern of the user. What concerns the user is that the software works well and provides a good experience.
So what you've done when choosing Electron is to make a very particular tradeoff: You've lowered development costs for yourself, and in exchange the user gets to "enjoy" a program that ignores the target OS's UI completely, hogs resources like mad, and comes with all the quirks you'd expect of someone trying to create serious application software entirely in Javascript - compounded by the fact that anyone doing so in the first place is doing it because they don't have the skills and experience of a non website developer. It's really quite amusing seeing "multiplatform" Electron software take years for a linux release - hello discord.
It's like trying to ice skate uphill, any initial timesaving from not putting the right shoes on is quickly eaten by the fact that the tool you're using was never intended for the job.
That's why people don't like electron. If you don't have a monster computer it runs worse, and even if you do, it behaves like a bad houseguest. Windows has it's own native UI, please use it. So does MacOS. Linux has several that run on the former two. "I optimize code by buying a new CPU" isn't something to be proud of.
Your entire defence of electron is that your $1800 computer runs electron programs fine, that it allows you to throw software together very quickly, and that eventually normal people will also have computers as shiny as yours, so the excessive resource consumption doesn't matter.
That's a really bad and selfish position to take, both from an engineering and an ecological standpoint, and utterly hostile to the user also.
Most people don't have $1800 computers, they have closer to $500 computers. What inevitably happens is that by the time average joe's computer catches up to your performance, you yourself have also kept moving, and the software you write has bloated to match.
That electron allows you to throw together your software in less time is no concern of the user. What concerns the user is that the software works well and provides a good experience.
So what you've done when choosing Electron is to make a very particular tradeoff: You've lowered development costs for yourself, and in exchange the user gets to "enjoy" a program that ignores the target OS's UI completely, hogs resources like mad, and comes with all the quirks you'd expect of someone trying to create serious application software entirely in Javascript - compounded by the fact that anyone doing so in the first place is doing it because they don't have the skills and experience of a non website developer. It's really quite amusing seeing "multiplatform" Electron software take years for a linux release - hello discord.
It's like trying to ice skate uphill, any initial timesaving from not putting the right shoes on is quickly eaten by the fact that the tool you're using was never intended for the job.
That's why people don't like electron. If you don't have a monster computer it runs worse, and even if you do, it behaves like a bad houseguest. Windows has it's own native UI, please use it. So does MacOS. Linux has several that run on the former two. "I optimize code by buying a new CPU" isn't something to be proud of.
+1 to exactly this.