Electron considered harmful
This article, like many similar to it, makes the (imo flawed) assumption that a dev tool ought to be evaluated on only a few variables--e.g., code quality, performance, package size.<p>If writing software is about making users&#x27; lives easier, happier, or better, though, I think we ought to optimize for that and that alone.<p>I say let the market and communities of users decide which software they want to use. I use Nylas b&#x2F;c I like the UX better than Ubuntu&#x27;s Evolution, despite its flaws. I use Caret (electron markdown editor) because I wanted a cross-platform tool and I have &gt; 4 gigs of ram. Hell, millions still use the Facebook Android app, despite the fact that it sucks down battery juice like your crazy uncle sucks down Miller Genuine Drafts before lecturing you on how terrible millennials are (happy Thanksgiving, btw).<p>Of course, it&#x27;s important we know the trade-offs of the decisions we make, so we need critical pieces like this. But to be as prescriptive as this article is to miss the forest for the trees. Love it or not, JS is a point of entry for a hell of a lot more ppl than C++ is, so expanding its reach into new arenas is not only net-good, but I&#x27;d argue also inevitable.<p>That said, the article does skirt an issue I&#x27;ve thought about a little, and I&#x27;m interested to hear others&#x27; takes.  If software collectively moves more towards higher-end systems, e.g., with SPAs and electron apps and all their cpu-intensive renders, are we further limiting a great web UX to those with the money to afford the latest laptops? We spend a lot of time thinking about accessibility standards for our products (A11Y, etc.), but when should we begin to think about accessibility from a socioeconomic perspective? Or are performant computers now so accessible  that we needn&#x27;t worry?