[rawoke083600]

Looks interesting...

One critique is "light/tiny/lightweight" whenever I read about software being "light" I cringe and get an eye-twitch(ok not really). But adding "light" or claiming your product is "light" means usually nothing other than its new.

Sure it might start out as small/lightweight but usually this is because the software is new.

Once you start adding in corner-cases (the ones you haven't even thought about) some iterations of bug fixes (hey we all human programmers in the end), mix in a good dose of pull-request from helpful contributors (User:'Your library looks great, if you accept this PR it will fit my needs perfectly.') and finally bring it up to par with a competitor of two (over time of course !).

Your now light software is no longer light !

What is the answer ? To be honest I don't have one, but to say knucckle down and be sure to say no often enough and have a laser focus on the exact problem your software is solving. Of course it seldom the case in real life with real software :)

Anywhoo ! Congrats on actually releasing something :)

[christophilus]

Preact, Mithril, Zod, etc. There are plenty of projects that have remained relatively light by saying “no” repeatedly to things which are outside their scope or would introduce unwarranted bloat.

[qudat]

Reminds me of https://suckless.org

[rawoke083600]

Did they really ??

Looking at latest version of Preact v 10.5.14.zip (887kb) vs Preact v8.5.0.zip(90kb). So that is almost a x10 size increase in two years.

[zebracanevra]

You're doing something wrong. I just tested now. Preact 8.5.0 is 3.2kb minified+brotlied. Preact 10.8.2 (latest) is 3.7kb. That's a very small increase.

[rawoke083600]

I think you right. I just downloaded the "tagged software version" from github.

[rahim_alwer]

Thanks and love the feedback. I know the dev space is full of cliche and overused terms. It's tough to not use them even when you're aware. I don't see it as a hard rule to avoid them and I think in some cases it's okay.

For example, if the core goal of the library is to achieve <2kB and you've predetermined a tight API scope (most likely based on existing references) then IMO it's okay to call it tiny/lightweight. It works out with libraries that are a providing a set of primitives to solve a generalized problem. I'm sure some people appreciate like I do when a library clearly indicates a core goal that was achieved (i.e. size) right in the top-level description.

[fabiospampinato]

I'm not sure that's really true for something like this, I've been working on something similar myself in these past few months, it got to about 5kb min+gzipped with all things included, and there's _a lot_ included, but if you only include the functions provided by this tiny library I wouldn't expect it to be much much larger than it, maybe a 2x or something? That's still small, fixes and performance optimizations tend to cost something, but you will never have to pay 10kb to use those 6 functions basically, the rest will be tree-shaken off.

[tluyben2]

I still don't mind people calling it light if it is though; maybe it gets removed later, however when it (still) is light, it makes it easy for me to search for so I can prevent overall project bloat.

[a1371]

This is only 850B, to me that was useful info that was mentioned in the headline. Yes it might get larger in the future or it might not.