3 ms·

Yes, but this is my point. https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/discussions/3162 https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/discussions/3162 > FabianLars, 3 hours ago

Yes, but this is my point. https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/discussions/3162 https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/discussions/3162 > FabianLars, 3 hours ago, Collaborator > ...for example my somewhat simple app uses ~120MB > But only ~5MB is the actual tauri/rust process, the rest is WebView2. So, if 60MB is a large download, surely a simple app using 120MB of ram is pretty outrageous too? > There is no reason why hello world UI should be 60MB. Absolutely, but you can't have everything. Fast. Small. Doesn't use any memory. Easy to develop for. Free. Consistent cross platform behaviour. You can't have them all. So... the question isn't "is 60MB ok?" The question is: What do you care about the most? Is it really the download size? It's not the download size for me.

jen20 5y ago
I’d encourage you to rethink whether the “all” you describe is desirable. I couldn’t care less whether an app is consistent across platforms - in fact I consider that a strict negative since apps should be consistent with the platform on which they are running not with themselves on other platforms.
- phil294 5y ago
  I don't think that "consistent" always necessarily refers to pixel-perfect equality. When using this term in web dev, most would refer to browser standards as in spacing, layout, JS apis, availability of native elements etc. In this context, consistency is rather the opposite of negative. I don't think anyone really cares about how date picker looks on Firefox vs. on Chrome. Maybe you are referring to Gtk/Qt vs. win32 etc. with their integrations in the operating system. I agree that they look and feel the best for their respective OS, but eventually require you maintain multiple unrelated codebases. It is understandable and necessary for this approach to die. A middle ground would be best, say, Qt support on all existing platforms. Or more likely, prettier browser defaults for standard elements like lists and tables, with browsers themselves respecting the underlying OS theme. Probably never gonna happen...
  - jen20 5y ago
    I'm not that interested in using lower common denominator software on any platform - for my purposes I am only interested (and willing to pay for) software written to integrate with macOS in a first party manner. That means I want all of the accessibility controls to work, all of the system integration to work and so forth. I'd expect anyone serious about software to want the same on whatever platform they use. Lowest common denominator crap is the thing that needs to die.

jen20 5y ago

I’d encourage you to rethink whether the “all” you describe is desirable. I couldn’t care less whether an app is consistent across platforms - in fact I consider that a strict negative since apps should be consistent with the platform on which they are running not with themselves on other platforms.

phil294 5y ago
I don't think that "consistent" always necessarily refers to pixel-perfect equality. When using this term in web dev, most would refer to browser standards as in spacing, layout, JS apis, availability of native elements etc. In this context, consistency is rather the opposite of negative. I don't think anyone really cares about how date picker looks on Firefox vs. on Chrome. Maybe you are referring to Gtk/Qt vs. win32 etc. with their integrations in the operating system. I agree that they look and feel the best for their respective OS, but eventually require you maintain multiple unrelated codebases. It is understandable and necessary for this approach to die. A middle ground would be best, say, Qt support on all existing platforms. Or more likely, prettier browser defaults for standard elements like lists and tables, with browsers themselves respecting the underlying OS theme. Probably never gonna happen...
- jen20 5y ago
  I'm not that interested in using lower common denominator software on any platform - for my purposes I am only interested (and willing to pay for) software written to integrate with macOS in a first party manner. That means I want all of the accessibility controls to work, all of the system integration to work and so forth. I'd expect anyone serious about software to want the same on whatever platform they use. Lowest common denominator crap is the thing that needs to die.