[blub]

"But if you read most of the posts, it's a whole bunch of angry people arguing about Electron sucking, about why the app is 100mb, about how C++ and Qt would be better, etc. etc. The difference between me and those people? I'm already working on my next project ;)"

This is a typical style of web app development that is rightfully criticized: the average web developer thinks it's okay to offload their performance problems on everyone else as long as they reach their personal or company goals.

Pumping out many unsupported, mediocre projects isn't something to brag about either.

[dwild]

> the average web developer thinks it's okay to offload their performance problems on everyone else as long as they reach their personal or company goals.

Why is it not okay? He solved his problems under his requirement, if it doesn't solve your problem under your requirement, it's not his fault and he isn't forced to follow your requirement.

> Pumping out many unsupported,

Why you consider that bad? He is learning, he is building, he is solving issues. The fact that he keep doing this is bad? I only see positive in that...

I'm pretty sure it's supported as much as he need them to be. He is his only client. I'm pretty sure too that if anyone wanted theses projects to be supported, he would gladly accept to be hired by them with a compensation worth his time.

I just saw that he was even generous enough to give his source code, with a MIT license on top of that!

> mediocre projects

That's just means and uncalled for. You should really think more over this issue you seems to have.

[blub]

I consider that bad for two reasons:

* the software was released/published and the author's idea about what are the minimum requirements that should be fulfilled by any and all software apparently doesn't include efficient use of system resources (Electron) or at least some minimum support (many projects already gone, moved to the "next project", bragging about quantity).

* they are learning and building but they're learning bad practices which they'll naturally continue to make use of, if they will developing software professionally or already are. Perfect practice makes perfect, this doesn't.

I have thought about this issue for years. There is no overabundance of quality software in the world, the opposite is true. If every simple open source project is praised just for the very simple and frankly nowadays fashionable act of offering the sources, no wonder.

[diob]

I think they mean that for the most part developers spend their time complaining instead of doing.

In the end, someone can always rewrite something that's successful to fix performance issues, but what's the point of making something performant (or focusing heavily on architecture) before you even know people want your product? Performance matters to a degree (after all, performance is a feature), but the product matters the most.

[blub]

The point is professional pride and the "engineering" in software engineering.

Which can admittedly get in the way of half-assing a start-up into life... and that's why many devs are not good business men. That's a feature, assuming we don't want all our sw to be complete crap.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Why not? Nobody's forcing you to use them.