I'm generally quite a negative person, as you may have already noticed, but there's one thing I'm very sensitive about. I get really triggered when someone starts blaming managers, other developers, backend engineers, designers, and so on for all problems.
Because most often, any "wrong" decision from your point of view might have reasons that you, in your current position, can't even imagine. Starting with the fact that they could have been a thousand times right in that moment, and ending with the fact that when making decisions, there were no competencies, time, sufficient priority, and so on.
Living and working when you think your colleague is incompetent is literally impossible. Moreover, in reality, this is almost never the case. They're as incompetent as you are. You work at the company and they work there, you work together. You don't know their job better than they do (most of the time). So just let them, damn it, work as they know how. Help with expertise.
I stumbled upon this post, by the way. And if we talk deeper about its essence, I completely didn't catch the logical chain of how managers decided to develop desktop applications in Electron for the whole world. However, there's still no technology at Electron's level. Any desktop plus web, infinite number of developers already available on the market. Alternatives? Slack is such a big and expensive company, in no small part thanks to Electron.
And at that scale, they can already do something industry-changing. Or someone will use the niche that Slack opened and make something performant and competitive. Performance is a competitive advantage, there would be competitors in sight. By the way, even in terms of performance for users, Electron is not that bad. There's Figma, for example, pretty good, right? Even Mattermost is rumored to be more pleasant than the original Slack, but I haven't tried it myself. It's just a matter of the company's priorities and developers' competencies, first and foremost.
Obviously, damn it, technologies are important. But you solve problems with technologies. At different stages - different requirements. Yes, people like to do things not "correctly," but with understandable iterations. Yes, this can lead them into trouble. But if in any startup people tried to solve all industry problems, then not a single corporation would have grown from a startup, because all the money would have run out earlier.
And the complexity of these frameworks is in raising the level of abstraction, by the way. That's approximately how progress works.