[croon]

> If there was a native editor with feature parity with VS Code (including the number of plugins and dedicated MS resources speeding up its development, and free), nobody would be using it.

Is it possible that VS Code (for example) exists (in its feature specific incarnation ) only because Electron is a cost cutter in terms of portable development?

In other terms: Maybe the portable native full featured VS Code is the middle of the cheap-fast-good venn diagram.

[coldtea]

>Is it possible that VS Code (for example) exists (in its feature specific incarnation ) only because Electron is a cost cutter in terms of portable development?

It could -- though I doubt it.

But I was concerned with a more limited question: if there was a good VS Code alternative that's native, would many still prefer an Electron version?

[croon]

> But I was concerned with a more limited question: if there was a good VS Code alternative that's native, would many still prefer an Electron version?

I understood what you meant. I respect you disagreeing with my premise, but in the scenario where that premise is true, your question is not applicable.

Scenario: Would anyone choose MDF boards at IKEA if they could choose plywood or natural wood, or assemble their own furniture if given the choice (at the same price)? Barring a few applications, probably not. But IKEA wouldn't be IKEA if they were just another producer of wood furniture, meaning they got to market and stayed there because of the shortcuts and limitations they could justify when reaching a price.

Same thing here (IMHO). VS Code could have some cross-platform code and some platform specific code, but the cost would be higher and the output velocity would likely be lower. Assuming that is true, your question is misleading, albeit not on purpose.

[Chico75]

Most people wouldn't care unless there was a performance difference between the two.