>but don't pretend like they don't have tremendous benefits too.

Javascript+html+css is not a global optimum in the solution space of "making cross platform GUI apps", its just the best solution that exists right now (if you are afraid of C++), and that is too bad.

We could have simpler, better performing ways if we bothered to do things that aren't web related more often.

Iterating front-end development with Javascript+html+css is simpler and quicker than doing the same with C++ because you don't have to recompile for each iteration. In some cases I don't even need to restart the app.

Also, I have been able to debug in a few nasty cases by getting users to switch out a js/html file and restart the app. That's impossible to do with C++ given the same time/effort constraints.

Those are just two fairly small but measurable examples. There are also drawbacks to having not chosen Qt for the front-end. But those data points and more were part of a rather complicated cost-benefit analysis of what was available to make a cross platform GUI app in a reasonable amount of time.

I don't see what a search for a "true" toolkit has to do with such an analysis. I don't see what caricatures of one camp or another as unduly emotional has to do with such an analysis. What am I missing?

Qt's cross-platform support is amazing.

Now tell me, what do native apps get you over Electron apps? Demonstrably happier customers? Or just the personal satisfaction of knowing your app is a "global optimum" or whatever?

I'd say what you are arguing is "my team is better at JavaScript than Qml/JavaScript/C++", which is fine. It really boils down to what the team is most comfortable writing in.

That aside, Qt definitely wins when compared to Electron.

what makes you say that ? I develop a C++/Qt app and fix bugs and add new features without any problems and without having to care to mac / windows / linux specific stuff.

[0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2003/01/more-khtml/

It's not quite like Qt but it tries to follow the same style. The quality is not quite up to par with Qt either but it was definitively good enough for the internal projects.

Well, if I may... What actually tells adults and children developers apart is their swift ability to bring nuances (like in 'pros n cons') on the table when choosing the more efficient techno for a given problem. Yes, Qt has great pros. No, Qt is obviously not The Silver Bullet.

The customisations one needs to implement are far easier.

I still hope a mix of WebComponents and WebAssembly will fix the eco-system.

Obviously, but that is entirely orthogonal to the language used.

I don't really agree with this sentiment. JavaScript has become one of the better languages to work in these days. I'd much rather work in JavaScript than C++ any day.