Sure, not everyone has tons of RAM, but some people do and it is okay to write applications catered to either. E.g. I could use something efficient to write code in like EMACs, but I choose to use the "RAM hog" that is Intellij.
Bundling all legitimate criticism as a "rant-fest" is an unfair take.
Sure, there are legitimate things to criticism Electron for, but it is not very helpful to dog-pile on every project that uses the framework _just for using it._
In this case you have a literal webapp that they also want to bundle as a desktop application. Turns out Electron is the most convenient way to do this.
The overwhelming majority of it? Yes.
>In this case you have a literal webapp that they also want to bundle as a desktop application. Turns out Electron is the most convenient way to do this.
That's just it, though: Developer convenience; at the expense of the user's experience and resources. So many developers digging-in their heels, refusing to use any other GUI framework because they can't be bothered to learn or use anything beyond JavaScript. If that isn't the excuse then it's because an MVP is needed and, because the market is replete with JavaScript developers, Electron was chosen as the platform on which to build. But after the project is green-lit, surely the product will be built using a more performant, lower-weight framework, right? Well, no, because that only benefits the end user.
For open source projects in particular it seems like having a tech-stack that many people are familiar with and like to code, is easy to "hack", and publish to multiple platforms in is a clear benefit.
Edit: And, yes, the performance for the end user suffers because of these concessions to the developer. But in my experience with open source projects, these trade-offs can make the difference between having a viable application and not. I would love efficient, optimized, native apps, but given the choice between an Electron app and nothing, I would rather have the Electron app.