Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbeltrame | Hacker News Reader

> whether the app is "free" enough for their liking (MIT vs GPL-based license, etc),

I know it is tangential to this point, but a lot of developers, including long time Free Software developers, don't get licensing at all. While packaging software (FOSS) for a distribution, I've had to poke multiple people to fix licensing problems that invariably occurred (most common: incompatible licensing of parts of a project, perhaps imported from somewhere else).

> whether it is written in an "acceptable" language (Electron being Satan Incarnate, of course)

There are legitimate technical reasons for not liking Electron, not necessarily due to "disproportionate amount of time bickering" spent by "Linux Desktop users".

View on HN

> a lot of developers, including long time Free Software developers, don't get licensing at all

Completely agree; it's a complex part of producing software that people (myself being guilty of this) incorrectly assume they can ignore.

> There are legitimate technical reasons for not liking Electron, not necessarily due to "disproportionate amount of time bickering" spent by "Linux Desktop users".

There are legitimate technical reasons for not choosing electron, but I can't think of any for not liking it. It's a perfectly fine and useful way to make a cross-platform desktop application. If it doesn't suit your project's purposes because of performance, size, or current acumen, that's fine.

But I think OP is referring to "Electron is awful", "I hate Electron", or "Never use Electron" levels of ire that crop up occasionally, which should be exclusively reserved for something that no one should be working in.

> It's a perfectly fine and useful way to make a cross-platform desktop application.

My main problems with Electron are:

- The size of the runtime

- The fact that every application has to bundle it and it means that multiple Electron applications on the same system do consume a lot of resources if not handled well

- The fact that unless you (as a developer) play due diligence, you might distribute your app with a version of the runtime which may contain vulnerabilities (one of the reasons Linux distributions don't like library bundling that much).

I can't deny it's probably easier for many (not for me, but although I write Python code all day, I'm by no means a "developer"), but it can be potentially wasteful, to say the least, and require far more resources than what you'd actually need with a another toolkit.

That said I for sure won't point a gun at someone who wants to use it. ;)

This comment is so beautifully in-character for the thread, and completely fulfills OPs characterization of people that "do indeed seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time bickering about which popular apps best fulfill their purity tests".

If they didn't care about software they'd just use whatever came pre installed on their computer

We are here because we are deeply interested the software that we're using. If one group of programs does something that tends to suck, then we're going to call it out.

Just remember, you get what you pay for.

To be honest I spent at best 3 minutes writing that post; compared to the time I put in FOSS projects...

> but I can't think of any for not liking it.

I distinctly remember a post on here about three or four years ago where a blind person detailed losing their job because Electron does not integrate with desktop accessibility functions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com