There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications, progressive web applications, isomorphic/universal applications and so on. Usually the business case decides. If you want people to make more standard desktop applications, you should figure out a way to make it work for the common Electron app business case. Or stop throwing baseless shit in their general direction just because they've chosen a technology that does not meet your purity requirements. I'm very sure everyone in the community agrees Electron is not ideal.
> There are significant differences between standard desktop applications, Electron applications
That is certainly true.
But I was answering to
> The same as from using Electron, but a step further: less overhead from unneeded browser features, ability to lock the user into a kiosk/fullscreen mode, while most of the code is still reusable.
namely _Desktop applications_
Wasmer claim is
> Use the tools you know and the languages you love. Compile everything to WebAssembly. Run it on any OS or embed it into other languages.
There's no browser involved here, just compile once, run everywhere
The reuse developers part I suppose could be achieved with QtQuick since QML is javascript based, but beyond the language, not that much else translates and you can’t completely get away from C++ for anything non-trivial, so it’s not really an electron competitor.
