|
|
|
|
|
by fake-name
2946 days 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... |
|
> 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.