Seems clear to me that Electron's higher RAM usage did not affect adoption. Instead, Electron's ability to write once and ship in any platform is what allowed VSCode to win.
Because reality is not as primitive as you portray it to be, you can have hindrances and boosts with the overall positive even winning effect? That shouldn't be that hard!
> Seems clear to me that Electron's higher RAM usage did not affect adoption.
Again, it only seems clear because you ignore all the dirt, including basic things (like here, it's not just ram, is disk use, startup speed, but also like before with competition) and strangely don't consider many factors.
> Instead, Electron's ability to write once and ship in any platform is what allowed VSCode to win.
So nothing to do with it using the most popular web stack, meaning the largest pool of potential contributors to the editor or extensions??? What about other cross platform frameworks that also allowed that??? (and of course it's not any platform, just 3 desktop ones where VSc runs)
Why did MS Internet Explorer win? Its peak market share in 2003 was *95%*.
It was only eventually dethroned through a massive investment by first Apple, and then Google.
If IE6 was such a pile of shit (and it was), why did it win? Why did it cost so much to unseat it, and why was that so difficult? People would have much rather had a better browser, but we got stuck with IE6 for years with because of complex market forces.
Like IE6, Electron isn’t about what’s best for users. It’s what’s best for companies that prioritize web developer accessibility and reduced cross-platform development complexity over their users’ experience.
Sure, you can ignore that it was a hindrance just like you ignored ignored the previous point.
Like how you ignored my point too?
If it was a hindrance, why did it win?
Seems clear to me that Electron's higher RAM usage did not affect adoption. Instead, Electron's ability to write once and ship in any platform is what allowed VSCode to win.
> Like how you ignored my point too?
No, differently
> If it was a hindrance, why did it win?
Because reality is not as primitive as you portray it to be, you can have hindrances and boosts with the overall positive even winning effect? That shouldn't be that hard!
> Seems clear to me that Electron's higher RAM usage did not affect adoption.
Again, it only seems clear because you ignore all the dirt, including basic things (like here, it's not just ram, is disk use, startup speed, but also like before with competition) and strangely don't consider many factors.
> Instead, Electron's ability to write once and ship in any platform is what allowed VSCode to win.
So nothing to do with it using the most popular web stack, meaning the largest pool of potential contributors to the editor or extensions??? What about other cross platform frameworks that also allowed that??? (and of course it's not any platform, just 3 desktop ones where VSc runs)
1 reply →
> If it was a hindrance, why did it win?
Why did MS Internet Explorer win? Its peak market share in 2003 was *95%*.
It was only eventually dethroned through a massive investment by first Apple, and then Google.
If IE6 was such a pile of shit (and it was), why did it win? Why did it cost so much to unseat it, and why was that so difficult? People would have much rather had a better browser, but we got stuck with IE6 for years with because of complex market forces.
Like IE6, Electron isn’t about what’s best for users. It’s what’s best for companies that prioritize web developer accessibility and reduced cross-platform development complexity over their users’ experience.