4 ms·
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 "ligh
by 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 agoThanks 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.