zlacker

[return to "The Codex App"]
1. Olympi+EJ[view] [source] 2026-02-02 21:31:37
>>meetpa+(OP)
It is baffling how these AI companies, with billions of dollars, cannot build native applications, even with the help of AI. From a UI perspective, these are mostly just chat apps, which are not particularly difficult to code from scratch. Before the usual excuses come about how it is impossible to build a custom UI, consider software that is orders of magnitude more complex, such as raddbg, 10x, Superluminal, Blender, Godot, Unity, and UE5, or any video game with a UI. On top of that, programs like Claude Cowork or Codex should, by design, integrate as deeply with the OS as possible. This requires calling native APIs (e.g., Win32), which is not feasible from Electron.
◧◩
2. gloosx+I92[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:38:10
>>Olympi+EJ
>This requires calling native APIs (e.g., Win32), which is not feasible from Electron.

Who told you that? You can write entire C libraries and call them from Electron just fine. Browser is a native application after all. All this "native applications" debate boils down to the UI implementation strategy. Maintaining three separate UI stacks (WinUI, SwiftUI, GTK/Qt) is dramatically more expensive and slower to iterate on than a single web-based UI with shared logic

We already have three major OSes, all doing things differently. The browsers, on the other hand, use the same language, same rendering model, same layout system, and same accessibility layer everywhere, which is a massive abstraction win.

You don't casually give up massive abstraction wins just to say "it's native". If "just build it natively" were actually easier, faster, or cheaper at scale, everyone would do just that.

◧◩◪
3. gbaldu+rb2[view] [source] 2026-02-03 06:54:17
>>gloosx+I92
It baffles me how much the discourse over native apps rarely takes this into consideration.

You reduce development effort by a third, it is ok to debate whether a company so big should invest into a better product anyway but it is pretty clear why they are doing this

◧◩◪◨
4. eloisa+J83[view] [source] 2026-02-03 14:05:16
>>gbaldu+rb2
The real question is how much better are native apps compared to Electron apps.

Yes that would take much disk space, but it takes 50Mb or 500Mb isn't noticeable for most users. Same goes for memory, there is a gain for sure but unless you open your system monitor you wouldn't know.

So even if it's something the company could afford, is it even worth it?

Also it's not just about cost but opportunity cost. If a feature takes longer to implement natively compared to Electron, that can cause costly delays.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. ngrill+Ht4[view] [source] 2026-02-03 19:49:22
>>eloisa+J83
I think the comparison between native apps and Electron apps is conflating two things:

- Native apps integrate well with the native OS look and feel and native OS features. I'd say it's nice to have, but not a must have, especially considering that the same app can run on multiple platforms.

- Native apps use much less RAM than Electron apps. I believe this one is a real issue for many users. Running Slack, Figma, Linear, Spotify, Discord, Obsidian, and others at the same time consumes a lot of memory for no good reason.

Which makes me wonder: Is there anything that could removed from Electron to make it lighter, similar to what Qt does?

[go to top]