21–30 of 177 posts
Wonder how the author didn't come across Qt or wxWidgets in his research?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AKA useful software that actually does something users want, rather than some kind of ascetic practice exercise. Yes, yes it does.
Well, not really. I hate on Electron not because of its size on disk, but its runtime memory footprint. Things like Skype in the background using 500MB, an Autodesk update notifier sitting silently in the tray using 350MB etc. all add up to a few GB of main memory you suddenly don't have. And these numbers are real, by the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of "who cares" thinking gives us lazy bloatware like Electron.
AKA useful software that actually does something users want, rather than some kind of ascetic practice exercise. Yes, yes it does.
Less importantly, my computer's resources are also not infinite. Yes, maybe your Electron app does something I want, but guess what, there are numerous other things I also want to do, and it is a bit silly that an IRC replacement now takes half of my computing power and manages to be less responsive than the stuff I used 20 years ago, in the computers of 20 years ago.
Wonder how the author didn't come across Qt or wxWidgets in his research?
He jokingly mentions Qt in the caption of the final picture. I guess since he excludes GTK2 at the beginning for size concerns, wxWidgets and Qt would fall into the same category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of "who cares" thinking gives us lazy bloatware like Electron.
AKA useful software that actually does something users want, rather than some kind of ascetic practice exercise. Yes, yes it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of "who cares" thinking gives us lazy bloatware like Electron.
AKA useful software that actually does something users want, rather than some kind of ascetic practice exercise. Yes, yes it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> If personal storage units were given away for free, you might argue that it doesn't make sense to organize your stuff, or remove stuff you don't need anymore, and you would be wrong. The least important reason to consider is to conserve disk and bandwidth; the most important is to reduce risk by reducing surface area. Small, sleek and efficient is mostly about reducing cognitive load, even if it had it's roots in m…
What is this ridiculous obsession with executable size? How much time did this author spend chasing down alternatives to a measly 120MB? If they're working on art project then fair enough, but if they're working on a useful program then surely anything else they could have done with that time would have brought more value to end users than shaving off 3 cents' worth of disk space.
- Longer start-up times (ridiculous things in 2019: a) SSD prices, b) the fact that it takes longer for an Electron todo app to load off a high-speed SSD than it took for basically the same application to load off my old Amiga's floppy drive)
- Fewer applications that you can run at the same time, higher chance of disk thrashing when resuming from suspend (bloated frameworks still have to make it to RAM, which yes, is also cheap and abundant, but load up a few VMs and see how abundant it seems then)
- Additional bandwidth used for delivering application updates
- Higher battery consumption if you use antivirus software and the like, because all those bits still need to be looked at.
- Sometimes it's just security theater, but not always -- a complex framework still has an attack surface even if your application doesn't use all of it.
These things save way more than a few cents' worth of disk space.
Wonder how the author didn't come across Qt or wxWidgets in his research?
the only true "cross-platform" alternative is electron, which is a bit bloated and slow, but vscode is built on it, along with many others and worked fine. I personally prefer electron these days.