The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js

Post by boracay » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #11

callum85 wrote: post #2

Last time I tried building a 'blank' node-webkit app for OS X (using https://github.com/Dica-Developer/generator-node-webkit ), the resulting .app came to ~100MB. Does anyone know the base size for an atom-shell app?

Seriously, does anybody nowadays care about a 100 MB desktop app? I developed my first app in 1997 with Delphi and it was only 200 KB, so from that perspective I always cringe when I see that an app I've developed is multiple MB. But in all seriousness, do users actually care? Every time I download an OS X app, it's at least 50 MB, but I find that even I don't care anymore because downloading 50 MB nowadays only take…

Post by woah » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #60

woah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for the delicious pain of Java development?

Java development is pure pleasure when compared with web development.

Post by juliangregorian » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 8:05 PM UTC

evv wrote: post #54

rrdharan wrote: post #12

This article doesn't accurately convey the state of Chrome Applications. There's actually a much richer way to build apps that have a more native look and feel, including their own branded top-level window with fewer of the limitations the author cites. https://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps

The article's title is "The State of Desktop Applications in Node.js", and chrome applications do not let you run node.js on the local machine. If you can't run your own userland code on the machine and talk to hardware, then you can hardly call it a desktop app. Google wants to keep you locked in their sandbox.

Post by Dewie » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

mateuszf wrote: post #64

pjmlp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java development is pure pleasure when compared with web development.

Usually said by Java developer not understanding JavaScript.

Post by penprog » Wed, Dec 10, 2014, 8:19 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #76

penprog wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see, I barely need to "understand" Java to use it and get decent and performant code but I need to be a javascript expert to be able to do anything not horrible. Please stop trying to act like the state of web and javascript is good because it's shit. Web development is basically a bunch of people suffering from stockholm syndrome.

You've coded a lot in languages very similar to Java and that is an argument for Java's ease of use?