Hacker News Reader

Comment by g_delgado14 | Hacker News Reader

Want to double-down on this. I read "native" and immediately assumed the main selling point was perf - which enticed me to open the link.

View on HN

Well the other selling point would be a native UI experience. I like apps that use the native UI style of the host operating system.

Paying for native macOS apps is like buying vinyl records. It’s an aesthetic choice, nothing more.

It is a user experience choice. Most decent native macOS apps adhere to system conventions. Text editing works as one would expect in a system text field. Keyboard shortcuts behave as expected. Custom keyboard shortcut definitions from the Keyboard section in Preferences actually work. And on and on.

Slack in particular is extremely, extremely slow, even by Electron standards. I can't expand it to the full-height of a 4K (running at 1080p) portrait monitor without typing becoming unbearably laggy, so I either have to keep it at 1/3 monitor height, or have to use another application for writing the text.

it also has multiple accessibility issues for low vision users. I'd happily switch to a native client because using native widgets instead of HTML would likely address most, if not all, of my accessibility needs.

Sadly, this take misses so much about Mac native software, things that many people just do not know are possible.

- accessibility built in which benefits everyone

- native application scripting

- consistent keyboard shortcuts, including focus ring movement

- ability to App Nap / fast system shutdown

- consistent retina/DPI behavior across display drags

I've been developing Mac native software for 20 years now and I'm still wowed by some of the things that come with the toolkit for free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com