[JasonSage]

How do you quantify “lightweight”? This is used in a couple places, but without additional information it’s essentially meaningless.

I’m starting to think that this is a red flag when looking at a project when there’s no further information. It’s marketing-speak masquerading as a technical attribute, but without additional information could just be 100% incorrect. It’s also overly-generic… depending on the intent of the author, lightweight could mean CPU-efficient, small binary, feature-light, and so on, but when not qualified further it seems to be implicitly all of these and more, but most likely that’s not accurate.

My marketing pet-peeve aside, this looks nice and I will be trying it out. :) Congrats on your HN launch!

[mcilroy]

Good point. Will definitely take another look at the copy! I'm referring to it being a small bundle size to download :)

[klabb3]

Note that hackernews is notoriously anti “marketing speech”. I don’t think there’s anything bad with elaborating but lightweight/snappy/slim is pretty much what’s important, given that there’s so much slow bloatware out there. Not all users are technical, and eg throwing out benchmarks on the front page would be complete mumbo jumbo to many users.

That said, I also think the best way to communicate the intended vibe is also through screenshots (which you already have) and design. Looks awesome.

[bombcar]

Lightweight is a great adjective when comparing with existing "heavyweight" software - most people would understand what it means if you say "Numbers is a lightweight Excel-like spreadsheet"; "Zoom is a lightweight Go-to-meeting".

As a stand-alone adjective it's not as useful.

[jerf]

In that case I'd go straight to "responsive" or "fast" or something. The vast bulk of users literally don't understand what we mean by lightweight; ask around as to which is larger, a kilobyte or a gigabyte, with your non-technical friends and I bet you find even the ones who get it right do a lot more fumbling than you expect.