> but it's also the fastest way to support Mac, Windows, and Linux all at once

Is really that simple compared to a normal cross platform web application written in (for example, but there are multiple frameworks) QT?

I mean, sure you have to write JavaScript and not C++, but in the end is that more simple? Maybe to start with yes, but then you get into tooling, typescript, multiple build steps, etc that makes it probably more complex than a old boring QT program in C++. And nowadays with most software not even written by humans, does the argument "but javascript is simpler than C++" really holds?

It's absurd than we could have very performant computers, and we still have the performance of 10 years ago because the added resources in modern PCs gets wasted by programs that need to run an entire Chrome instance to do basic stuff. I mean, open 4 programs that use Electron (Discord, Spotify, VSCode, WhatsApp desktop) on a modern PC and you consumed most of the available RAM just for them.

You're not wrong, but users' UI/UX experience is already aligned with web apps. QT is weak on the web side, and with C++, there are too many things to worry about.

Precisely because I don't write it directly, I think what I need is not C++ but JavaScript. Thread safety and verification responsibilities in C++ are, in my opinion, the biggest bottlenecks in the age of AI development.

I'm tolerant of the brief pauses caused by JavaScript's garbage collector, but users are not tolerant of crashes. That's the key.

And while the core engine should be in Rust or C++, the code presented to the user? Yes, I think Electron is the right choice. The reason is that it's a familiar UI. If you present an unfamiliar new UI, users have to relearn it. But web UI is already familiar to most generations. From this perspective, I think Electron is far better than C++ in terms of design. I don't believe performance always wins.