Yes. I have never got that insistence on UI nativity. Is there any OS where it's actually practical to only use programs that conform exactly to the vendor's UI style? All the major desktop OSes depend on tons of "non-native" programs to actually do work. Android usually requires some, and I'm not sure about iOS as I've never seriously used it, but I would guess the case is similar there.
It seems like "must be UI native" is a way for Mac fanboys to try to enforce their preferred design paradigm on otherwise-uninterested people.
To give credit - Apples human interface guidelines for the original Macintosh were wonderfull in giving guidance where the UI as a concept was bound to be foreign to most. Also, the first commodity GUIs were on resource strained hardware so they could not do everything effectively.
I think we are now at a point where the glowing animated screen is far more familiar to most people and the raw power available on most devices is such the only rational constraint for UI design is that use experience must be understandable to most and that the underlying system must play nicely with rest of the device.
If I have a choice, I'm always choosing native application for macOS. It's eating less memory (because all shared libraries are already loaded), it provides similar experience as other apps (menu bar, context menu), it's usually works much faster (because Objective C is quite fast compared to some interpreted languages). Sometimes I don't have a choice (like Intellij Idea), so I have to live with Java or Chromium application, but I don't like that experience.
It seems like "must be UI native" is a way for Mac fanboys to try to enforce their preferred design paradigm on otherwise-uninterested people.