What's so sad about it? It was just a compilation target that made sense at one point in time. Its like being sad about i386-unknown-freebsd1 being dropped.
replyYes, I don't mean that it affects the present. Only sad in a nostalgia sense.
replyWhat’s sad about that is we could have had a clean, native, desktop Figma application.
replyThis is a lazy statement based on extremely vague handwaving about desktop v.s. web. It's not the 2010s anymore. Time to drop these generalities.
replyUsers were migrating to us _from_ desktop applications. Collaboration was the key differentiator, but a less well known reason was that improved performance, including but not limited to the support of large design systems, was also a commonly cited reason among paying customers for migrating to Figma.
Users still care.
replyDesktop or collaborative is a false dichotomy. Desktop or performance is too.
I get why you did what you did. It makes sense. But don’t think there aren’t people out here who HATE everything being shoved on the web with no desktop option.
No, electron and PWA don’t count.
How dare you make a performant, accessible app that's easy to distribute, instead of spinning up a different eng. team to maintain a different codebase on a different deployment pipeline so 1% of your userbase can say it's a "real" desktop app instead of a silly "fake" desktop app. :P
replyJokes aside, Figma's stack is super inspiring, and y'all's articles on sync engines heavily inspired my work on LegendKeeper. I appreciate the work you do!
A native application that further locks users into some single platform? Or accept all the maintenance and development costs and burdens that keep the application one step behind Photoshop if they wanted to support multiple platforms?
replyThey explicitly had the goal of being a web application. It was a product choice, not a technical choice.
reply