4 ms·
Would it make more sense to distribute electron as a dependency and allow apps to use it? That way, instead of 10 apps requiring 10 different electrons we have
by discreditable 10y ago
Would it make more sense to distribute electron as a dependency and allow apps to use it? That way, instead of 10 apps requiring 10 different electrons we have 10 apps that can use a pre-installed electron.
- hundchenkatze 10y agoIsn't that what Chrome/FF/Safari/Edge/IE/... all do?
- ascagnel_ 10y agoHow does an app bundling Electron in that way differ from an app using a native embedded browser widget (other than that it can run in Chrome vs. Edge/Safari/etc.)?
- discreditable 10y ago> using a native embedded browser widget (other than that it can run in Chrome vs. Edge/Safari/etc.)? I didn't know that was possible, do people do that?
- ascagnel_ 10y agoNot too many apps do it, but it is possible. https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/uwp/api/windows.ui.xaml.controls.webview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/uwp/api/windows.ui.xaml.con...
- belovedeagle 10y agoNo, because history has shown that shared libraries on any and all platforms inevitably become bundled into applications themselves (leaving one wondering WhyTF someone would choose something as unnecessarily complex as Docker over, you know, static linking). Those who do not know history are doomed to reinvent it, poorly. Or something like that.