[tredre3]

That's nice but in practice it doesn't mean anything.

Here's a comparison of both apps with the same video file open and the same clip cut:

Startup time (time between double click and window appears and ready):

- Losslesscut: 2 seconds

- VidCutter: 12 seconds

Time to load the video file:

- Losslesscut: 1 second (to be fair it doesn't show thumbnails)

- VidCutter: 3 seconds

Memory usage:

- Losslesscut: 368MB

- VidCutter: 455MB

Idle CPU usage:

- Losslesscut: 0%

- VidCutter: 0%

Network requests:

- Losslesscut: 7

- VidCutter: 0

Installed size:

- Losslesscut: 455MB

- VidCutter: 178MB

Source, kinda (the memory shown is the sum of all subprocesses. taken when idle so no ffmpeg subprocess included.):

https://imgur.com/a/DwrNdxT

[MaxikCZ]

Network requests:

- Losslesscut: 7

Whyyyy

[tredre3]

Here's what's blocked and what I think it's doing based on the code.

    2023-08-21 12:33:28 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 140.82.112.5 | 443 | <-- Github, update check
    2023-08-21 12:33:30 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 54.192.51.72 | 443 | <-- https://losslesscut.mifi.no/config.json + 
    2023-08-21 12:33:30 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 54.192.51.122 | 443 | <-- https://losslesscut.mifi.no/config.json +
    2023-08-21 12:33:30 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 54.192.51.66 | 443 | <-- https://losslesscut.mifi.no/config.json + 
    2023-08-21 12:33:30 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 54.192.51.52 | 443 | <-- https://losslesscut.mifi.no/config.json +
    2023-08-21 12:33:30 | losslesscut.exe | Block | Out | 172.217.13.206 | 443 | <-- Google, Unknown

In the code there is also: https://losslesscut-analytics.mifi.no/

Typical.

[userbinator]

Because everything needs to phone home these days?

That's frankly quite disturbing to see. A program like this has zero need to even touch the network.

[Zetobal]

Eh... Updater would be fine.

[pdntspa]

Vidcutter's startup time isn't PyQT, that initializes nearly instantly. Considering how both defer to ffmpeg a lot of these stats dont mean anything

[guraf]

You said electron sucked. That might be, but vidcutter, the subject of this thread, isn't proving your point. Just goes to show that who writes the code has more impact than the tech stack when it comes to such tools.

I don't know if all the numbers are accurate but it's true that vidcutter does weird things. I think it extracts ffmpeg to the temp directory on every start for whatever reason (it's not like it's a portable executable, it requires installation so why not extract it then?).

I can't explain why it uses more memory or how they managed to make it look alien despite using QT (so much for accusing electron of not looking native).

[refulgentis]

They are a direct response to the GP post's offhand quip about Electron. GP found the difference relevant, and I believe you're GP, but I am confused now given the change in interest.

[pdntspa]

My point is that startup time may not have anything to do with the GUI. It is not a good metric. I could write both an electron and pyQT app that takes minutes to start if it has other shit it needs to be doing. I haven't used electron in years but pyQT apps start up instantly, therefore this app must be doing something else.

If the two apps were programmed identically then you might have a comparison.

[speedgoose]

Most people don't care whether an app uses Python with Qt or Javascript with Chromium. They care about more about useability and features.

[pdntspa]

The "most people" argument is moot. I have outlined by arguments elsewhere in this thread

[speedgoose]

Well, people don’t build apps for the very few users that don’t like JavaScript web crap but are fine with Python Qt crap.

[refulgentis]

> pyQT apps start up instantly

????

[pdntspa]

Have you written code with it? I am working on a pyQT project right now that is interactive pretty much as soon as python starts up