I'm surprised at the criticism about 64-bit only. Are people still using 32-bit operating systems?
When can I finally get rid of this stupid "Program Files (x86)" folder which annoys me every time I click into the wrong one looking for my program, when even new programs are released as 32-bit?
A 32-bit binary will work just fine on a 64-bit OS, but not the other way around, and there's no reason such an app needs 64-bit, so why unnecessarily restrict compatibility?
1. macOS will deprecate 32-bit completely soon,
2. Linux needs 32-bit libs installed on the system, and many people don't have them,
3. Windows has really good backward compatibility and still supports 32-bit. But it's the only system.
So, distributing a 64-bit-only software actually makes sense.
When I install something, if it pulls in a ton of stuff, I'll reevaluate whether I actually need it. In fact, I was pretty excited when I finally got rid of my dependency on 32-bit stuff and could eliminate the 32-bit repo.
I like 64-bit because it keeps my system clean, but because it's "better". I definitely want a 64-bit OS so some things can use more than 4GB RAM, so why have two copies of everything? Just standardize on the thing nearly everyone uses: 64-bit.
Can we stop assuming that people are always going to have the latest hardware? Even then, 32-bit SoCs running Linux are still pretty common in various embedded things and other low-power devices --- exactly the use-case for a small and native chat client.
Slack client on an embedded platform? Are you ok?