That being said, that's an aesthetic choice; and apps provided in it are better than nothing.
I also respect the fact that this is just a statement of a personal preference.
However I don't think most people care.
Good applications with thoughtful UX and useful functionality will succeed whether they choose native widgets or not.
Literally millions of people use applications like VSCode, Blender, OBS Studio. I bet the vast majority of them don't think what this here application needs is more native widgets.
Heck, no one cares that Figma is a web app. From what I can see it beat out all similar desktop native competitors.
Furthermore, in my prior comment, I acknowledge that you are expressing a personal preference/opinion and that I respect that.
I think everyone cares, whether they know it or not. Which sounds like an oxymoron. But my point is that inconsistent UX might not be glaringly noticeable, but it can still give a feeling of messiness and add to cognitive load.
"Native widgets" is just a way to achieve "consistent widgets". A good tradeoff IMO is to at handle as many things with native UX (e.g. window decorations, menus, etc.), as possible without compromising on function.
To avoid the latter, custom GUI is arguably necessary, as is the case with Blender, while OBS arguably doesn't need its own handling of the menu / window decoration.
These things matter very much to some people, as consistency affects how well certain accessibility tooling can understand the contents of applications. UI customization also matters for similar reasons. Certain things like scaling or theming, might rely on native GUI libraries.
To summarize, if the discussion is what is "best", and you don't have a functional reason to justify custom UX, and you disregard development cost, then the best solution is a consistent UX, i.e. native widgets.
What is native in windows? Win32, UWP, Windows.forms, MFC etc? Because even Microsoft has a bunch of electron (or equivalent) apps now.
So there are two. And both are native, yes.
That’s a design problem, not egui one. The reason UI went to shit is because no margin for creativity anymore, same design, same icons, same charts, same shit, I bet everyone in here can tell a site is using bootstrap css from the first 3 seconds..
Consequently, I wish more sites used Bootstrap. As an end user I don’t care a whole lot about a brand’s identity or style. I don’t want to have to guess and check to figure out what’s a tab or a menu or how to access settings. The number of custom layouts I’ve had to memorize is staggering and often gets invalidated when someone gets promoted and decides the site or app needs a new design.
Desktop window frameworks may have been bland, but they were based on actual usability studies and I think we gave that up too readily.
Innovations should remove friction.
They rarely do.
It's extremely hard to make a proper cross-platform kit. Because every platform has a gazillion little (and not-so-little) conventions about what's expected, behaviours, and even control placements. Even Qt struggles there and they have been doing it for over 30 years.
Furthermore, even they seem to have thrown in the towel and made the QtQuick (GPU rendered, non native looking widgets) as an alternative to the traditional QtWidgets.
It would definitely benefit from a more "neutral" style though, or even better a few style choices. GTK2 used to have a ton of actually attractive styles available back in the day.
99% of the users of said platform have both installed on their machine and would prefer either over the janky non-native ones in electron and egui apps.