4 ms·

I've used this for many projects that are still working to this day. That said, i'm not impressed. A web-based solution is usually better performing, despite a

I've used this for many projects that are still working to this day. That said, i'm not impressed. A web-based solution is usually better performing, despite all the bloatware necessary. This says a lot about the state of software development unfortunately.

small_scombrus 6mo ago
It isn't web based? It's a set of Lua scripts that run locally
- squeaky-clean 6mo ago
  They are saying web based solutions often out perform LÖVE, even though you would expect the opposite because LÖVE doesn't have the bloat of a browser engine.
  - usrnm 6mo ago
    Browser engines are probably some of the most optimized pieces of software in existence, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
    - wiseowise 6mo ago
      Explain this to electron haters.
      - krapp 6mo ago
        Browser engines are optimized for displaying web pages, not for applications. 60MB+ for a calculator is not optimal.
        hu3 6mo ago
        explain that to my webgl TypeScript browser game running at 180+ FPS while rendering a large RPG tiled world with infinite procedurally JIT generated biomes, with heavy processing delegated to webworkers.
        krapp 6mo ago
        As you aren't posting code or stats I can't say much, but I'd bet a native app would still be smaller and more efficient, since you have to wrap what you're doing in an entire Chromium instance and deal with a web stack designed for documents, which is definitionally less efficient than a native alternative. Tiles aren't exactly cutting edge technology. "Heavy processing delegated to webworkers?" That just sounds like threads but worse.
        hu3 6mo ago
        yep, native is faster for sure. but webgl + web workers is good enough these days. I can't share code sorry, the project got big and I have commercial plans. But you can tell Gemini 3.1, Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4 High to generate a demo and they do a decent job most of the times. that's how I got started, seeing how it was possible to have good game performance with multi threaded workloads on a browser.
        wiseowise 6mo ago
        Nobody ever said in the thread that web is the most efficient platform, stop with your “designed for documents” trauma already.
        krapp 6mo ago
        The first post in this subthread was literally a statement that "A web-based solution is usually better performing, despite all the bloatware necessary." And you literally joined in to support that assertion against "the Electron haters." And it isn't trauma, it's literal fact. Electron isn't used because it's technically superior to native applications, it's used because web devs are a dime a dozen. It's popular for business reasons, not technical reasons. It works "well enough," but only because computers are really fast but there's only so much slack an OS can take up when even parts of it are Electron apps, and probably vibe-coded to boot.
      - QuadmasterXLII 6mo ago
        step 1 htop there isnt step 2, explain is over
    - CyberDildonics 6mo ago
      Love2D uses Luajit and directly calls established game libraries. The CPU usage should be far better for 2D games, luajit is faster than a browser's javascript jit. You can also create single exe games that are a few megabytes and not a few hundred megabytes.
    - sph 6mo ago
      Optimized abstraction layer is still an abstraction layer. The web is like two or three of those.
actuallyalys 6mo ago
I don’t usually push LÖVE to its limits because I tend to make simple games as a hobby but I do keep an eye on its framerate and often it‘s in the 100s of frames per second. So it may not be impressive (in sense of winning benchmarks) but it’s rarely perceivably slow.
tertle950 6mo ago
I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Did you run any tests, or is it just a general observation? What's your computer hardware like? This isn't an accusation of anything, I promise I'm genuinely curious.
- herczegzsolt 6mo ago
  I've not done proper scientific comparisons, but had to reimplement some games as websites to make them reliably perform on Raspberry Pi's we used embedded. This is a bit of an apples to oranges scenario, because the algorithm and architecture is not exactly the same, despite the game functioning identical. The main weak points of LÖVE that we hit were mainly around embedded video playback though, which is probably very well optimized in chromium.
  - jamesgeck0 6mo ago
    I dunno if this is what you were seeing, but LuaJIT has some serious performance issues on ARM. https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94760 https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94760 It's unfortunate as Love2D is generally VERY snappy on x86. I used it on a 300MHz laptop back in the day.
    - tertle950 6mo ago
      LuaJIT was originally made with some x86 assembly wizardry so I'm not surprised to hear that the ARM version is worse.
    - mikemike 6mo ago
      As the open source author in question, I'd politely ask everyone to not draw overly-generic conclusions from an ancient discussion in some third-party forum, which links to a (now) resolved bug report. Open source is not a one-way street. By publicly disparaging open source projects, you're actually harming the ecosystem you rely on.
      - jamesgeck0 6mo ago
andrewmcwatters 6mo ago
[dead]

small_scombrus 6mo ago

It isn't web based? It's a set of Lua scripts that run locally

squeaky-clean 6mo ago
They are saying web based solutions often out perform LÖVE, even though you would expect the opposite because LÖVE doesn't have the bloat of a browser engine.
- usrnm 6mo ago
  Browser engines are probably some of the most optimized pieces of software in existence, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
  - wiseowise 6mo ago
    Explain this to electron haters.
    - krapp 6mo ago
      Browser engines are optimized for displaying web pages, not for applications. 60MB+ for a calculator is not optimal.
      - hu3 6mo ago
        explain that to my webgl TypeScript browser game running at 180+ FPS while rendering a large RPG tiled world with infinite procedurally JIT generated biomes, with heavy processing delegated to webworkers.
        krapp 6mo ago
        As you aren't posting code or stats I can't say much, but I'd bet a native app would still be smaller and more efficient, since you have to wrap what you're doing in an entire Chromium instance and deal with a web stack designed for documents, which is definitionally less efficient than a native alternative. Tiles aren't exactly cutting edge technology. "Heavy processing delegated to webworkers?" That just sounds like threads but worse.
        hu3 6mo ago
        yep, native is faster for sure. but webgl + web workers is good enough these days. I can't share code sorry, the project got big and I have commercial plans. But you can tell Gemini 3.1, Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.4 High to generate a demo and they do a decent job most of the times. that's how I got started, seeing how it was possible to have good game performance with multi threaded workloads on a browser.
        wiseowise 6mo ago
        Nobody ever said in the thread that web is the most efficient platform, stop with your “designed for documents” trauma already.
        krapp 6mo ago
        The first post in this subthread was literally a statement that "A web-based solution is usually better performing, despite all the bloatware necessary." And you literally joined in to support that assertion against "the Electron haters." And it isn't trauma, it's literal fact. Electron isn't used because it's technically superior to native applications, it's used because web devs are a dime a dozen. It's popular for business reasons, not technical reasons. It works "well enough," but only because computers are really fast but there's only so much slack an OS can take up when even parts of it are Electron apps, and probably vibe-coded to boot.
    - QuadmasterXLII 6mo ago
      step 1 htop there isnt step 2, explain is over
  - CyberDildonics 6mo ago
    Love2D uses Luajit and directly calls established game libraries. The CPU usage should be far better for 2D games, luajit is faster than a browser's javascript jit. You can also create single exe games that are a few megabytes and not a few hundred megabytes.
  - sph 6mo ago
    Optimized abstraction layer is still an abstraction layer. The web is like two or three of those.

actuallyalys 6mo ago

I don’t usually push LÖVE to its limits because I tend to make simple games as a hobby but I do keep an eye on its framerate and often it‘s in the 100s of frames per second. So it may not be impressive (in sense of winning benchmarks) but it’s rarely perceivably slow.

tertle950 6mo ago

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Did you run any tests, or is it just a general observation? What's your computer hardware like? This isn't an accusation of anything, I promise I'm genuinely curious.

herczegzsolt 6mo ago
I've not done proper scientific comparisons, but had to reimplement some games as websites to make them reliably perform on Raspberry Pi's we used embedded. This is a bit of an apples to oranges scenario, because the algorithm and architecture is not exactly the same, despite the game functioning identical. The main weak points of LÖVE that we hit were mainly around embedded video playback though, which is probably very well optimized in chromium.
- jamesgeck0 6mo ago
  I dunno if this is what you were seeing, but LuaJIT has some serious performance issues on ARM. https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94760 https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=94760 It's unfortunate as Love2D is generally VERY snappy on x86. I used it on a 300MHz laptop back in the day.
  - tertle950 6mo ago
    LuaJIT was originally made with some x86 assembly wizardry so I'm not surprised to hear that the ARM version is worse.
  - mikemike 6mo ago
    As the open source author in question, I'd politely ask everyone to not draw overly-generic conclusions from an ancient discussion in some third-party forum, which links to a (now) resolved bug report. Open source is not a one-way street. By publicly disparaging open source projects, you're actually harming the ecosystem you rely on.
    - jamesgeck0 6mo ago

andrewmcwatters 6mo ago

[dead]