Far too many people write desktop software in JS. I wish they wouldn't, but they do.
Well... I wouldn't go that far, but over the years we've all managed to work around the warts of HTML/CSS and can put up with it.
(Amazon Facebook Google Apple Microsoft)
Doing things well requires expertise.
> Windows/Linux/Mac cross-platform apps were in the same place before Electron.
Seriously?! Qt predates Electron and is a far superior solution. Of course, if you only know web development, your existing knowledge doesn't translate over easily, but the reverse is equally true.
> but ask anyone today what they'd prefer to build an interface with and it's most like HTML/CSS
Only if they are already experienced in web development. Otherwise, Qt Quick is much better, taking the positives from CSS, without the downsides of using a document format to layout a UI.
> Especially for highly graphic intensive, responsive layouts, there's almost no competition really.
Seriously, Qt Quick is far better. Though on the desktop, you'd be better off not building a "highly graphic intensive, responsive layout" and instead adhering to the established norms.
Rather, HTML/CSS/JS is what you're stuck with if you're treating the web as your platform, which is tempting when your code is really just a front-end for a remotely hosted system anyway.
Electron is the result of people trained in web development turning their hands to desktop development, but not wanting to learn something completely new.
"Learning something new" has a massive cost when you apply that to an entire engineering team. A tool that can leverage existing resources to make people proficient in a new area simply through new technology would be a huge value added IMO.
Electron is a little like auto-translating your UI. It's easier for the developer and the user pays the price.