3 ms·

Thanks for your response, but I do not get the "flat out lying" part. What has lying got to do with a subjective definition of "lightweight". See discussion on

Thanks for your response, but I do not get the "flat out lying" part. What has lying got to do with a subjective definition of "lightweight". See discussion on Javascript - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39797181/why-javascript-is-called-as-light-weight-programming-language https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39797181/why-javascript-... What does "lightweight" really mean? The idea that everyone sees "lightweight" and they ONLY think of Chromium size seems an ascription of "lightweight" ONLY to chromium size. I understand that has been a more common approach to chromium based solutions. This is not it here. I have said in a few of my comments that this is simple referring to "simpler". See a definition of "lightweight" from wikipedia: A lightweight programming language is one that is designed to have very small memory footprint, is easy to implement (important when porting a language), and/or has minimalist syntax and features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_programming_langua... So if we replace "lightweight programming language" with Chromely, while the small memory footprint, may be arguable false, it is however easier to implememt and minimal features. Note the "and/or" part.

fake-name 8y ago
Ok, I'll retract that statement. Corrected: There are a lot of potential reasons to use something like this, but having a main selling point of it being "lightweight" is just flat out lying or willfully misunderstanding what lightweight means. ------ Javascript, and all scripting languages in general (maybe excepting lua and similar) are fundamentally not lightweight. They require enormously complex runtimes. I'd say a reasonable definition of "lightweight" for an application runtime is if a complete, distributable app including all the required components can fit in 1 MB (This functionally excludes things like .NET too). There are, or course, odd corner cases (using the OS UI components, etc...), but it's broadly applicable. Other relevant bits to being lightweight - how fast is the application to start/stop? What's the minimum runtime overhead? etc...
- mattkol 8y ago
  Thanks for your explanation. If you read my intro, you will notice that Chromely was not started as an alternative to Electron, I was trying to solve a problem and over time I realized I came up with something that can be used instead of Electron (for .NET/.NET Core). > Other relevant bits to being lightweight - how fast is the application to start/stop? What's the minimum runtime overhead? etc... I have not had the bandwidth to check this. My hunch is Chromely may have some edge on this. But we leave that until it is proven or not. > There are a lot of potential reasons to use something like this .. I thought so too, so have many developers, thanks for pointing this out. Appreciate the feedbacks! Thanks.

fake-name 8y ago

Ok, I'll retract that statement. Corrected: There are a lot of potential reasons to use something like this, but having a main selling point of it being "lightweight" is just flat out lying or willfully misunderstanding what lightweight means. ------ Javascript, and all scripting languages in general (maybe excepting lua and similar) are fundamentally not lightweight. They require enormously complex runtimes. I'd say a reasonable definition of "lightweight" for an application runtime is if a complete, distributable app including all the required components can fit in 1 MB (This functionally excludes things like .NET too). There are, or course, odd corner cases (using the OS UI components, etc...), but it's broadly applicable. Other relevant bits to being lightweight - how fast is the application to start/stop? What's the minimum runtime overhead? etc...

mattkol 8y ago
Thanks for your explanation. If you read my intro, you will notice that Chromely was not started as an alternative to Electron, I was trying to solve a problem and over time I realized I came up with something that can be used instead of Electron (for .NET/.NET Core). > Other relevant bits to being lightweight - how fast is the application to start/stop? What's the minimum runtime overhead? etc... I have not had the bandwidth to check this. My hunch is Chromely may have some edge on this. But we leave that until it is proven or not. > There are a lot of potential reasons to use something like this .. I thought so too, so have many developers, thanks for pointing this out. Appreciate the feedbacks! Thanks.