• aeharding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    So you’re going to maintain two separate code bases with two separate teams as a knee jerk reaction to using one of the worst cross platform frameworks out there…

    For an app that does little more than display encrypted text in a list…

    weird flex but ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t get what you’re saying. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction for one thing, it’s a thought-out conclusion. They already maintain multiple codebases (server, browser extensions, mobile client…), they’re big enough that it’s not a bad idea, aren’t they? And it does do more than display encrypted text, notably implementing auto-fill and eventually passkeys.

      I also don’t see this as a ‘flex’ in any way, just transparency and sharing their process and conclusions with the community.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Recognizing you as a PWA developer; and a damn fine one, I get your take. But surely you are aware there are limitations to using PWA’s or other cross platform libraries. Sometimes maintaining multiple UI’s is the right choice. Especially if very little of your code is actually the front end. For you, Voyager is pretty much 100% front end, so that’s 100% of your code. But for Bitwarden, the interface is a much smaller proportion.

      • aeharding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        But for Bitwarden, the interface is a much smaller proportion.

        Can you elaborate on that? Bitwarden’s apps use Bitwarden public API, similar to how the Voyager app uses Lemmy’s public API.