Sure, I won’t dispute that it saves time to build apps this way, and that may be the right choice. But the results still suck and I still don’t like them.
Ironically, out of the apps I use regularly, the ugly, misbehaving apps built with cross-platform frameworks are from big companies that could easily afford to do it right, like Slack. The apps I use that come from small indie developers are all native. I suppose this is down to competition. I tend to have a choice for those apps, so I can choose ones that work the way I like. For Slack, my choices are to use the app, use it on the web (same as using the app, more or less), or find a new job at a company that uses something else.
Sure, point taken. Native widgets might work differently than cross-platform ones. That said, there's no reason a cross-platform widget couldn't work identically to the native one.
Indeed, a platform's native widgets an effective way to give users a consistent style and functionality across apps from many developers.
Yet, as a one-man dev team, the cost of building a separate version for each platform is prohibitive. The choice is to disregard most platforms or disregard a small corner of the expectations each user has for apps on a given platform.
The choice was pretty obvious to me.