yeah, how in the world are we ever gona update a binary in 2025... is this really still an issue? webdevs try to make GUI software in a browser for one reason; they can only code in web languages. Basically, if all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

re: "What are they exactly? Youve already mentioned distribution, but what else?"

Here are the key advantages of web clients beyond distribution:

Instant updates - Push a new version and every user gets it immediately. No app store approval process, no waiting for users to update, no supporting multiple versions in the wild.

Universal accessibility - Works on any device with a browser. Your grandmother's old Windows laptop, your coworker's Chromebook, someone's phone - all access the same application without platform-specific builds.

Zero installation friction - Users can try your application instantly by clicking a link. No download, install, permissions, or disk space considerations.

Sandboxed security model - Browsers provide built-in security isolation. Users trust clicking web links more than downloading and running executables.

Seamless integration - Easy linking, sharing, bookmarking. Users can send a direct link to a specific state of your application.

Lower development/maintenance overhead - One codebase, one deployment pipeline, one set of bugs to fix. Compare that to maintaining separate iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux builds.

Built-in networking - HTTP/WebSocket APIs are first-class citizens. No need to bundle networking libraries or worry about firewall configurations.

That said, native absolutely wins on performance, system integration, and offline capabilities. It's genuinely about picking the right tool. For Hologram specifically, we're trying to get you closer to native performance while keeping these web deployment advantages - best of both worlds for certain use cases.

I appreciate the perspective, but I think you're mischaracterizing what Hologram is about. We're not web developers who "can only code in web languages" - we're Elixir developers who've deliberately chosen Elixir for its technical merits (fault tolerance, Actor model, pattern matching, etc.) and want to leverage that investment across our entire stack.

Your hammer/nail analogy actually supports the case for Hologram: if Elixir is genuinely a superior tool for building systems, why shouldn't we extend that tool to work client-side too?

Native development absolutely has its place, and for many use cases it's the right choice. But there are legitimate scenarios where you want the reach and deployment characteristics of the web platform combined with client-side performance. That's exactly what Hologram provides - it transpiles your Elixir UI code to JavaScript that runs in the browser, giving you instant interactions without server roundtrips while keeping the language and paradigms you prefer.

Binary distribution isn't technically hard in 2025, you're right. But "not technically hard" isn't the same as "optimal for every use case." Sometimes you genuinely want instant deployment, universal accessibility, and the ability to update your application without user intervention. Different tools for different jobs.

I'd actually love to hear what you think about Hologram's transpilation approach specifically - writing Elixir UI code that gets converted to JavaScript for client-side execution. Does that change the equation at all from your perspective?

You are ignoring all of the advantages of writing a web client. Are you really saying that distributing a native app for every platform is better than writing something that uses the browser?