Maybe not anymore. I don't work on any Chrome-sized Rust codebases so I don't know, but iterating on anything is so much faster that it might work out fine.
There is absolutely no reason for Discord—a chat application—to run everything a browser does. Why do I need to play videos in the chat application? Why do individual avatars and even tags have to run custom shaders? It's called scope creep.
> a11y, IME, RTL
All of this can be done at the platform level. Win32 did this three decades ago. Comes with entire language packs.
> so you add a scripting layer, maybe integrate a little Lua VM or something that lets you execute JavaScript
See above: scope creep; features for features' sake.
You know exactly that the moment that Discord launches a new version that no longer plays videos, people will whine about it.
> All of this can be done at the platform level. Win32 did this three decades ago.
Yeah, but they're porting to Rust and GPUI and not that.
Chat apps are literally the central example of why Electron is a God-sent. Here's a video from a Rust guy explaining why there are quite a bit of reasons to do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnaGZHe8wws .
Now i consider that a must have.
Similar for emojis...
It turns out a chat app is about human interaction, not exchanging text, and in human interaction context is a big deal. All these things add context to the chat environment.
Fortunately IRC still works, and you can go enjoy your text only environment if you want!
Compared to Electron, there is no browser, so binaries are a much smaller, use less memory, startup is fast. And the attack surface is also much smaller (no XSS)
The way you phrased it, it's not. However if you've used Discord, you know that to render it you're essentially rebuilding a web browser due to the sheer variety of formatting, images, animation, audio, videos, languages, widgets, and whatnot that must all coexist in arbitrary forms.
What top-level engineering experience led you to believe the magic of multiple decades guaranteeing improvements?
But to your point - sure they are, not only in RAM, but also disk space, battery use, and startup speed etc. Some parts of them are fast, but in that suboptimal stuck-in-a-slow-niche kind of way like V8, which a better alternative would just get rid of (no doubt, great engineering once you learn about the almighty "trade-offs" that can excuse any performance failure)
Artcraft it's doing that in every software application;
> so you add a scripting layer, maybe integrate a little Lua VM or something that lets you execute JavaScript?
Every Arftcraft software can be command line driven and it's still fast and small compared to your bloated crap.
So, yeah, enjoy rebuilding complete browsers, I guess? I'm sure they'll run more efficiently than the rendering engines that have been refined and tweaked over the course of now multiple decades.
Well, unless you leave out the annoying stuff, like a11y, IME, RTL, but who needs those things anyway, am I right.
Then you find out that iterating on a fully Rust-based app is sloooow, so you add a scripting layer, maybe integrate a little Lua VM or something that lets you execute JavaScript?
Congratulations. You've built a browser, just with fewer features, more bugs, and probably higher RAM usage. Good job.