Brendan Eich Criticizes Electron and WebView2 Usage in Windows 11
Hello HaWkers, a statement from the JavaScript creator is generating quite a bit of discussion in the developer community: Brendan Eich publicly criticized the growing dependency of Windows 11 on web technologies like Electron and WebView2 for building desktop applications.
Eich, who besides creating JavaScript also founded the Brave browser, argued that this approach represents unnecessary "bloat" due to "rushed use of Web UX over native". But is he right? Let's analyze.
The Context of the Criticism
Windows 11 has been increasingly adopting web-based components in system applications. From the new Microsoft Teams to parts of Windows Explorer itself, Microsoft is replacing native code with applications that run on WebView2, its Chromium-based component.
Windows 11 Applications Using Web Technologies
Electron-based:
- Microsoft Teams (classic version)
- Visual Studio Code
- Discord
- Slack
- Notion
WebView2-based:
- Microsoft Teams (new version)
- Windows 11 Widgets
- Parts of Microsoft Store
- Outlook (new version)
💡 Context: Electron packages a complete Chromium browser (~150MB) with each application, while WebView2 shares a single Chromium instance across the system.
Brendan Eich's Argument
Eich is known for his strong opinions on technology. His main criticism is that companies are prioritizing development speed over user experience:
Issues Highlighted
1. Memory Consumption
A typical Electron application consumes:
- Base: 150-300MB RAM (just for the runtime)
- Per tab/window: +50-100MB additional
- Average total: 500MB-1GB per application
2. CPU Usage
Idle CPU comparison:
- Native Win32 app: 0-0.1%
- .NET/WPF app: 0.1-0.5%
- Electron app: 1-3%
- WebView2 app: 0.5-1.5%
3. Startup Time
| App Type | Average Startup Time |
|---|---|
| Native Win32 | 100-300ms |
| .NET/WPF | 500-800ms |
| WebView2 | 800ms-1.5s |
| Electron | 1.5-4s |
Why Companies Choose Electron and WebView2?
Despite the performance drawbacks, there are solid economic and practical reasons for this choice:
Advantages of Web Development for Desktop
Development speed:
- A single codebase for Windows, Mac, and Linux
- Millions of web developers available
- npm ecosystem with 2+ million packages
- Familiar debugging tools
Cost:
- Fewer developers needed
- Faster time-to-market
- Simplified maintenance
- More frequent updates
Consistency:
- Identical UI across platforms
- Familiar experience for web users
- Reusable design systems
The Counterpoint: When Web Makes Sense
Not all use of web technologies on desktop is bad. There are cases where the approach is justifiable:
Valid Use Cases
1. Light Productivity Applications
- Simple text editors
- Email clients
- Note-taking applications
2. Development Tools
- VS Code proved that Electron can be optimized
- Code editors need extensibility
- Web community creates plugins more easily
3. Cross-Platform Applications
- Small teams without resources for 3 codebases
- MVPs that need to validate market quickly
- Applications that already have a web version
Cases Where Native is Essential
1. System Applications
- Task managers
- File explorers
- Backup tools
2. High-Performance Applications
- Video/audio editors
- Games
- CAD/3D software
3. Applications with Security Requirements
- Password managers
- Banking software
- Sensitive corporate applications
The Future: Alternatives to Electron
The developer community is seeking alternatives that combine web development productivity with better performance:
Emerging Options
Tauri:
- Uses the operating system's WebView
- ~5MB bundle vs ~150MB from Electron
- Written in Rust (backend)
- 400% growth in 2025
Flutter Desktop:
- Real native compilation
- Consistent UI across platforms
- Performance close to native
- Adopted by Google and others
React Native for Windows:
- Renders to native components
- Familiar to React developers
- Microsoft support
- Better Windows integration
Capacitor:
- Cordova evolution
- Easy native plugins
- Less overhead than Electron
- Good for hybrid apps
Impact For Developers
If you're deciding which technology to use for your next desktop project, consider:
Questions To Ask
- Who is the target audience? - Technical users tolerate heavier apps
- What are the performance requirements? - Real-time applications need native
- What is the budget? - Native development costs more
- What is the urgency? - MVPs benefit from Electron
- Is there a web version? - Reusing code may be worth it
Practical Recommendations
For new projects:
- Consider Tauri as an alternative to Electron
- Evaluate Flutter for apps that need performance
- Use WebView2 if Windows-exclusive
For existing Electron projects:
- Optimize with best practices (lazy loading, cache)
- Consider gradual migration to Tauri
- Monitor memory and CPU usage
Conclusion
Brendan Eich's criticism reflects a real tension in software development: the pursuit of delivery speed versus user experience. While technologies like Electron and WebView2 have democratized desktop development, they have also brought performance compromises that affect millions of users.
The future seems to be in hybrid technologies like Tauri, which seek the best of both worlds. For us developers, the key is to evaluate each project individually and choose the right tool for the job.
If you want to understand more about the trends shaping JavaScript in 2025, I recommend checking out another article: TypeScript 5.9 and ECMAScript 2025 Approved where you'll discover the new features impacting your code.