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)_/¯
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.
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.
Sure. Bitwarden provides its own backend. So that backend represents some portion of their code base. In the case of Voyager, Lemmy provides the backend. So that backend isn’t a portion of your code. So Voyager is 100% frontend. Bitwarden is < 100% frontend.
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.
Happy to hear!
I didn’t even notice the app was sluggish, but this is still great news!
gosh, I wish Tuta were next.
Very exciting news… I’m the tech support for the family and I just can’t yet recommend argon as the hashing algorithm for everyone yet because they’ve said there’s a few potential hiccups. Looking forward to something snappier.
