Look, I'm not a fan of early adoption either... but Tauri is not a one-person project that appeared yesterday. It's been around for a while now and has important industry endorsements.

Also, every company should have an objective and rigorous set of technical requirements for the frameworks they use. If Tauri passes those there's no reason not to use it.

[–] boff@lemmy.one 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As much as technologists like us wish we could prioritize efficiency and use the latest and flashiest tools all the time, that's just not practical. When you say you want each company to have an objective set of technical requirements when choosing a toolset, you also have to have a set of practical requirements. What is the cost of friction of adding a new tech stack to the company?

Adding electron means just learning electron. Adding Tauri means learning Tauri and Rust.

It's like the saying goes, "the best camera is the one you have with you". It's true with any business decision.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 6 months ago

You have to upgrade sometime, you can't stick to the "good old thing" forever.

That's the kind of thinking that makes a business miss the boat by a decade or two until they're no longer competitive and the cost of refurbishing has become so ridiculous that they're forced to liquidate and sell whatever's left of value (mostly customers and assets).