Qt runs in a web browser via WebAssembly but building an application that way--I mean, if you want that to work, good luck, but it's a presumptuous ask to make of a developer. If you want to have a client somebody can log into via Chrome or Firefox? Hi, now we have two codebases that aren't sharing logic.

Qt also doesn't work well on iOS or Android. Attempts have been made. They're not viable without significant work that "Qt is cross platform" elides, and you're probably forking your entire codebase for what you can actually salvage. And when you've built a Qt application, there's a whole lot less that's reasonably sharable when you eject out of it on those platforms (because you will), as opposed to the large amounts you can effectively share between React and React Native (see also the web-hosted option above).

If your dev team thinks in web-like terms, Electron is a more comfortable place to be. Better? I'd agree with you that it's probably not.

Not really disagreeing, but "Better" is just constrained by the real ressources at hand. You have a team, specialised in making plattform independent QT apps? Sure, that is what you do. But chances are you don't, so you just target the web as web devs are plenty around.

"Academic" metrics of what is theoretically more preferable as a plattform and should be considered "better" are usually not very helpful to actually build things.

To the extent that this is true, it acts as disincentive for people wanting to pursue non-web-dev pathways in their careers, which then further limits the availability of such developers, which then further "confirms" the "cross platform is Electron" idea.

Developing with Qt is (I am told [0]) not much harder than typical web equivalents, but it is different. The result is generally more performant, both in terms of UI and also data handling/computation.

[0] I personally work with GTK, not Qt; Qt goes much further with hand-holding developer helpers than GTK does.

So, +1 to the developers of Revolt.