> but do we really care if an app is 50MB, in 2018?

> my laptop has 1TB HDD + 256GB SSD, and 24GB of RAM. I can definitely spare 50MB of disk space and 200MB of RAM.

How much cache does your laptop have? All this RAM usage completely thrashes any caches anywhere. Page caches, disk cache, etc.

Slack alone takes a heavy toll on my laptop. Combine it with any heavy website on FF (which has gone insane on mac since Quantum) and the laptop is ready for take-off.

Not to mention that we are slowly putting a ±$1k price tag on "comfortable computing". People who spend <$300 on a computer are absolutely screwed, even though they have orders of magnitude more power than a device which took humanity to the moon (to use a hackneyed comparison).

I find using developer computers as a measuring stick a painfully elitist perspective. In an ideal world, software developers would be banned from spending more than $250 on hardware. Ever. [for their current workstation]. That would do more to change the face of software than any processor improvement ever did.

> Many times it's either an Electron app or no app at all, as many companies wouldn't bother supporting Linux if Electron didn't make it so cheap and easy.

I agree with this. However, focusing on first order consequences can be deceptive. Perhaps it is precisely the existence of Electron that suffocates any budding competition for more performant but slightly more involved alternatives?

Make WPF-like replacement that works on Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS and their browsers and we will all switch. You are demanding that we all become mega crops with N teams duplicating the same code in with native frameworks and that just won't happen because a) we don't have cash laying around b) users don't know the difference between 10 MB app and 200 MB app, only us do.

> How much cache does your laptop have?

Enough. How much bandwidth does my ram have? Enough that it can fill cpu caches in I don't notice time. I still have 12 year old Conroe with spinning hard disk laying around and it never had any problem running VS Code so there's that data point.

> Make WPF-like replacement that works on Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS and their browsers and we will all switch.

Literally Xamarin.Forms, though without the Linux support still (and browsers, of course, because native apps aren’t web apps).

I dont mind running 1 electron app on my desktop, where battery isnt an issue, but imagine if every app you run all day was electron. How long would a battery last? How much more energy is being consumed across the world because of it? If your making a get-in-get-out type of app, its a no-brainer, but if your making a live communications app, a text editor for professional text enterers, an image editor for artist, that's supposed to run all day, I think its worth considering something more efficient. It'd be a hard comparison to make right, but I'd like to see if electron apps don't undo all the energy saving changes done by chip manufactures.

By my old standards I have a supercomputer on my lap. I want it to perform like a supercomputer. I don't what all that power to get eaten by programmers using inefficient technologies.

In this age of portable devices and the battle to get decent battery life out of your machine, Electron apps strike me as counterproductive. There's more to it then just memory usage, I think.

My laptop is high spec, but each running an Electron app probably reduces my battery life by 20-40 minutes, and if I'm running 3-4 that's a significant drain.

The difference in battery life between Chrome + Slack + Atom at work, and Safari + Sublime at home is huge. Quitting Slack often gives me an hour more battery.

Yes, we do.

Besides, without Electron, we'd have more native Windows apps, and running Win32 under Wine on Linux is still often better than Electron.

>but do we really care if an app is 50MB, in 2018?

What happens when every developer decides user resources are practically infinite, so every application uses as much of everything it wants to all the time?

What does the current landscape of javascript on the web look like? Not exactly a model of efficiency and speed, for more or less that reason.

Not everyone is rich to buy such laptops.

Also I don't know any no technical friend using more than 4GB on their computers.

If it's not a hipster's binary (I'm looking at you golang and docker), yes, we do care.

> I can definitely spare 50MB of disk space and 200MB of RAM

Yeah, once. For a game, or a movie. But not 100 times for utilities I am actively using. Imagine, any given application can be run together with dozens, hundreds of others. Just like any given website is rarely the only website that's open.

Looking towards resources you can waste is the wrong approach. Look for waste you can do without, period.