Hello,
I am writing cause I wanted to get some opinions from folks here that have actually built and shipped with Electron (or Tauri).
Background: Building an API IDE on Electron. Not really “just an API client”, and not a(nother) thin wrapper around a webapp either. It’s a pretty original desktop tool with a lot of editor/IDE-like behavior - not the typical form centric behavior that postman or others have: local workflows, richer interactions, and some things that honestly would have been much harder for us to build and iterate on this quickly in a more constrained setup. Thats why Electron.
this is the tool: github.com/voidenhq/voiden
Now, as adoption is growing, we are starting to get the usual questions about memory footprint and app size.

The (slightly) frustrating part is this:
When the app is actually being used, the app-side memory is often pretty reasonable. In many normal cases we are seeing something like 50–60 MB for the actual usage we care about (even added it in the app itself for people to check it out).
But then people open Activity Monitor, see all the Chromium/Electron-related processes, and the conversation immediately becomes:
“yeah but Tauri would use way less”
And then, without realizing, I suddenly end up talking and philosophizing about Electron, instead of discussing the tool itself (which is what I am passionate about :)
And of course, I get it. The broader footprint is real. Chromium is not free. Electron has overhead. Pretending otherwise would be foolish. So we are constantly optimizing what we can, and we will keep doing so…
At the same time, I do feel that a lot of these comparisons feel weirdly flattened. For example people often compare:
full Electron process footprint VS the smallest possible Tauri/native mental model
…without always accounting for development speed, cross-platform consistency, ecosystem maturity, plugin/runtime complexity, UI flexibility, and the fact that some apps are doing much more than others. Which is by the way the reason that we went with Electron.
So all this context to get to my real question, which is:
- How do you explain this tradeoff to users in a way that feels honest and understandable, without sounding like you are making excuses for Electron?
And also, for those of you who have had this conversation a hundred times already:
-
What do you say when people reduce the whole discussion to “Electron bad, Tauri good”?
-
Have you found a good way to explain footprint in practical terms?
-
Where do you think optimization actually matters, vs where people are mostly reacting to the idea of Electron?
Mostly trying to learn how others think about this , especially those who have built more serious desktop products and had to answer these questions in the wild.
Would love your thoughts and advice!


hm…great points, thanks for taking the time to answer.
From the perspective of a user, why would they care about development speed?
Yes, the tool is already developed but it will continue evolving right? I mean, we almost make 2-3 releases every month since we shipped the first version and then open sourced. So the speed still counts. Plus, the users who create the tickets and expect them to be tackled are actually developers themselves. So yeah, the ability to deliver (at a good pace) to these folks matters a lot.
However - YES, if at some point the tool is at a state that the speed becomes less meaningful or useful, then indeed a change might be needed?
As for platform consistency, again, why would the user care?
Yes, since our users are Dev (and QA) folks, we thought that yeah, maybe someone could have different systems for work vs home vs side project (as you said). But another aspect that we thought is teams and collaboration. We didn’t want to have a scenario in which a team can not use it before some of the devs are using macs, others linux vs the QA folks using windows etc.
What I’m getting at is that the concerns of developers will not always be equally concerning to users.
Thats the heart of the discussion:) I guess because our users are also developers. :)