[mkl]

You should probably disclose that you're the primary developer.

The name seems like a terrible idea, as it's so generic and unsearchable. It will be hard to find help with things, even if it becomes more widely used. The peer-to-peer stuff seems interesting, but the documentation is incomplete. Elsewhere the documentation says "It’s built from scratch, 1000 lines of code", but it's way more than 1000 lines (and it would have to be).

[heapwolf]

Electron, Node, and Bun are also pretty generic and unsearchable. As to the rest of your comment, the p2p component is less than 1000 lines of code. And, as I said it hasn't had an official release yet (due on the 15th).

[mkl]

But socket already has a well-established meaning in software. I think even if you succeed with that name, it will be at the unnecessary cost of making network programming more difficult for everyone. It's easy to choose a unique name (even "SocketEngine" might do), and now is the time to do it.

Oh, that component is <1000 lines, got it.

Whether or not it's officially released, you are already promoting it as an alternative to much more established options, so you should expect people to compare on the same terms.

[heapwolf]

We've set expectations very clearly in that it's pre-release status with the intent to compete with Electron and similar projects. Node is an extremely common word in software for example, but it's not a problem because people generally apply context to their searches.

[synergy20]

make sense to me, node/bun/electron are common words but not so common in software, socket is a well known software term.

I still have no idea how the "socket" magic works, need to be convinced, till then I will stay with flutter for now.