It's all anecdotes, but in my experience native devs are by far more willing to step outside of their area of expertise and use the right tool for the job when building for the web. Yeah they'll groan, but at the end of the day they realize that HTML+CSS+JS is how web front end works and so they write that. Very few bother compiling their favored language to JS or asm.js or whatever because it adds an unnecessary step/level of indirection and feels like trying to use a hammer as a handsaw.
By comparison web front end devs tend to cling much more tightly to their favored language+toolchain, taking it with them to every platform they decide to develop for.
I think the front-end world has a big culture problem, and your answers are an example of that.
Ignoring arguments, aggressive advocacy, "you too"s, asserting that web technologies are great in the face of so much evidence to the contrary and most of all, insisting to use the same inadequate tools for
everything from desktop to mobile to embedded.
I've been having the same discussion for six years with different characters now. One thing has never changed - web apps consistently show poorer quality than their native counterparts, especially in performance, resource usage and usability.
The software this community so focused on PR and advocacy is building is not good in spite of the bragging.
And regarding your arguments:
* Java, C++, .NET, Python, etc can claim having ecosystems. JS has a continuously churning collection of libraries. Nothing has been forgotten.
* a lot of Qt developers use it where it makes sense by bulding hybrid apps or together with QML.
> Ignoring arguments, aggressive advocacy, "you too"s, asserting that web technologies are great in the face of so much evidence to the contrary and most of all, insisting to use the same inadequate tools for everything from desktop to mobile to embedded.
Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a nice guys who has nothing against Qt/C++. I'm glad it exists because I can use it when what matters is power usage, native looking UI, security, privacy and all. It's just that I don't, personnaly, need those requirements.
> The only thing I can think of is that it's free and allows the typical web developer to avoid learning anything new
I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. And I think you don't need to show disregard to "typical web developers" when you're trying to make a point.
What do you choose when you need to quickly throw an MVP in front of a customer? Surely not C++/Qt (well, maybe yes if that's the only platform you master).
When you need a web-looking UI ? Not C++/Qt.
When you need to easily deploy on hundred's of windows workstations at a plant where IT is blocking you from installing anything on said workstations? A web app, not a C++/Qt client.
So, you see, maybe the web platform also has it advantages when you start looking outside of what you do everyday for a living.
NPM, even if it has plenty of do-not-use-that-packages crap, is still far more furnished that Qt will ever be, for example.
> The only thing I can think of is that it's free and allows the typical web developer to avoid learning anything new.
One could say the same for the typical Qt developer that refuse to get serious in learning the web platform.