The article doesn't go as far as saying Electron is bad or judge Anthropic based on their use of it. It says Electron has downsides which are dramatically outweighed by the upsides and then shows that calculus remains true (i.e. the benefits of Electron still outweigh any of the potential downsides) even when using LLMs as coding agents. The article is not setting out to ridicule anything, it's investigating why Electron is still a good choice in the coding agent use case by looking at one such app (the Claude desktop app) written very close to home for coding agents as an example.
About the only thing the article can be said to ridicule at all is that the Claude app is slow and buggy (which is accurate IMO) but it's never saying that to imply it's impossible to solve that because it's an Electron app or that it means one should not use coding agents. The rest of the article really stands to state quite the opposite.
As the article concludes, it is a pro-Electron usage pro-coding-agent piece. I.e. that the Claude desktop app is written in Electron is NOT evidence either Claude or Electron must be bad:
> For now, Electron still makes sense. Coding agents are amazing. But the last mile of dev and the support surface area remains a real concern.
That last mile is where the author places the problems, and they had placed them there regardless whether one uses Electron or coding agents, so it's hard to take it as a hit piece for those two things.
