Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
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...

1 comments

Thanks 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.