• AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    38·
    2 days ago

    The thing is that Electron apps don’t even look good compared to native apps. They’re slow and janky and, once you’ve seen a few of them, your impression is “the company didn’t care enough to build a native app”. In that sense, an Electron webpage in an app has the same connotations as AI artwork on a Substack essay: it looks slick if you’ve never seen one before, but cheap and shoddy if you know what it is.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      23·
      2 days ago

      I’m still convinced Electron only exists because there’s a huge surplus of mediocre web devs.

      Electron solves hardly any problem that QT, GTK or all those other UI frameworks didn’t already solve 20 years ago. But for QT you need at least a few developers with passing knowledge of something other than js and css. And those guys are expensive.

      OR, it is a huge conspiracy by Micron et al to increase demand for memory modules.

      • Farid@startrek.website
        141·
        2 days ago

        If you’re talking about an app that exist solely as Electron, then you might be right. But the primary benefit of Electron is that you can distribute your already existing webapp as a downloadable app, which reduces the amount of maintenance significantly.
        Also, when it comes to UI diversity and customization, nothing beats HTML+CSS.

        And as you mentioned, there’s a looot of webdevs. Electron empowers those people to easily create applications. Which they did, they created many useful apps. An application that isn’t perfect resource usage-wise is often much better than no application at all.

        Think of Minecraft. Java is arguably the worst language to use for a chunk-based 3D game. But it’s still better than no Minecraft at all.

      • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
        21·
        1 day ago

        Writing the same app in Javascript for a DOM browser is quicker and easier than writing it in a native GUI toolkit, as you don’t need to think about life cycles or memory management as much. Of course, nothing comes for free, so the cost is borne by the userbase needing more RAM and faster CPUs to get the same work done. Which is philosophically in the same tradition of offloading negative externalities as dumping toxic waste in rivers.

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      81·
      2 days ago

      I mean “didn’t care enough” == pay an entire separate dev team to develop for potentially each OS (at least windows probably) in languages unfamiliar to the web team. Then separately maintain that desktop app in perpetuity while the backend changes and drifts. This all for a vanishingly small subset of the userbase that could have used the website with identical functionality. It’s a similar issue with mobile apps.

      I fully see the appeal of electron apps even if it’s not perfectly native feeling. I mean vscode is pretty universally liked n that’s electron. Also, it being a web app is a huge boon for anyone needing a code editor in browser.

      Perhaps frameworks like Tauri will supplant electron soon enough for better performance and native feel.

    • Irelephant@lemm.ee
      21·
      2 days ago

      The good electron apps are the ones you don’t realise are using electron.

    • skarn@discuss.tchncs.de
      7·
      2 days ago

      It really isn’t.

      It’s the Antwerp Port Authority in Antwerp, Belgium. Designed by Zaha Hadid. Pretty cool.>!!<

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_Building_(Antwerp)

      I saw several such hybrid old/new building combinations in Flemish cities. And they usually manage to pull it off.

      Another example I liked is the STAM, the Ghent city museum. They also host a nice yearly jazz festival in the courtyard of that one.

      https://stamgent.be/

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        7·
        2 days ago

        I think there’s a bias in the US against this sort of thing that doesn’t exist (or not to the same extent) in Europe due to the age of the cities/buildings.

        In the US, a building from the 1700s is a historic artifact to be cherished, while in parts of Europe a building from the 1500s is just the local pub.

        So, the US is often hesitant to modify these old buildings, but Europe seems to have more of a perspective of “it’s a building, not a museum, let’s give it new life by modifying it.”

        This is just from the perspective of me, from the US — and I think these old/new buildings are really neat!

        • Benjaben@lemmy.world
          3·
          2 days ago

          Huh, thanks for that perspective, I (US native) was firmly in the “how could they do this?!” camp, but you’re right! When old ass buildings are all over the place it’s probably much more pressing to figure out how to allow ongoing development and construction, vs. how to preserve the aesthetic of yet another centuries-old brick structure.

          Edit to add: ugh I still can’t get over how ugly and deliberately discordant it looks, reasonable takes be damned!

          • mrcmzl@lemmynsfw.com
            2·
            1 day ago

            Every country, even in Europe, is full of old but still disposable buildings of not much value.

            In Italy we desperately want to hold onto every historical building like it’s the peak of human achievement, but in the end that takes too much resources and you end up half-assing the job in most of them.

            At least in Belgium those old/new buildings didn’t have so much to do with allowing continuing construction, as much as expanding the function of some institution while keeping some continuity. The one in OP is a Port Authority (Antwerp is one of the major ports in the continent, after Rotterdam) and they needed to expand, so they kept the old building and added… A flying ship. The glass and steel thing is supposed to be a flying ship. The old building is below it, very nearly intact.

            Another cool one for me was the Antwerpen-Centraal train station. They preserved 100% the look of the facade, and expanded in the back and below. It has train tracks on 3 different floors (none of which are the ground floor). Look at some of the pictures of the inside.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerpen-Centraal_railway_station

            • Benjaben@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 day ago

              I was definitely including “expanding for extra use” in what I mean by allowing construction, but either way thanks for the info. I’ve seen some utterly hideous stylistic choices (which, to be fair, seem garish and “loud” by design, I didn’t uncover some secret), but I really like when it’s done with some care. Probably not a realistic goal in every case, as y’all have helped me see.

              The one you posted is utterly jaw dropping :)

        • mrcmzl@lemmynsfw.com
          1·
          1 day ago

          Meh, I don’t know. Europe is full of old buildings, and such attempts are still not all that common.

      • rustyredox@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 days ago

        How do the floors in the upper structure handle the sloping incline of the geometric shape? Is there just a lot of closed off volumetric slivers between the planes of the floor and ceiling and shell, or is there only one or two floors, with the upper floor having a larger rising canopy?