4 ms·
Tauri uses the operating system's web view, so it's significantly smaller than Electron's "ship a whole copy of Chromium" approach.
by jakelazaroff 4y ago
Tauri uses the operating system's web view, so it's significantly smaller than Electron's "ship a whole copy of Chromium" approach.
- chii 4y agobut then you have to contend with the various potential different webviews from different OS'es. The weight of an app is more than just the size on disk, which tbh, is insignificant in today's harddrive. What's a couple hundred extra megs? The advantage of shipping your own browser is the control, and thus, reduction in having to support multiple different webviews and the bugfixing associated with that.
- musicale 4y agoImagine being able to run ten 1.6GB Electron apps in only 16GB of RAM - it's super efficient!
- fluidcruft 4y agoWouldn't a web app have to deal with running in the various browsers anyway?
- chii 4y agoyes, a web based app would have to contend with the same issue. So what's the advantage of shipping a packaged app that also have the same problem, when shipping it as an electron app would solve this directly and easily?
- iainmerrick 4y agoThe packaged app can work with the local file system, and call additional native APIs that aren’t available in a browser context.
- devmor 4y agoThe main advantage is that the Tauri app runs its non-render contexts in Rust, on the metal, rather than in the javascript vm. The secondary advantage is that you don't have to update and ship a new binary every time Chromium updates.
- jakelazaroff 4y agoAs someone who cut their teeth on web development when we still had to deal with IE6, I just don't think this is a problem. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had to fix major inconsistencies between browsers over the past few years.