(no title)
mifino | 3 years ago
I'd argue also for most end users' point of view as they will most likely get a more stable app when the average developer doesn't have to write C/C++.
> The thing is, I have dozens or hundreds of tiny little utilities like this installed that make one-off tasks that I do once a month or so much easier. I can't afford for them to be Electron based on my 128 GB SSD.
That's a fair point. I also feel the pain of installing large apps on my MacBook with 256GB SSD. But I think I would still take a large app with all the other benefits than an app that might SEGFAULT all the time, but is small because it's written in C/C++ (like what has been my experience with avidemux for example).
> On Linux, the norm is that distribution maintainers put together a package with the dependencies separate, and these are shared between multiple packages
I get this point, and I used to be an avid Gentoo user myself so I compiled everything from scratch and liked the small size and efficiency of a dynamically linked system. I think the biggest drawback with this approach is that sometimes sharing libraries with "compatible" versions will cause bugs because those versions actually have certain tiny differences that cause bugs to appear, whereas with a static build you lock down the whole dependency tree (except the OS level libs), so you know almost for sure that the app is going to work exactly the same regardless of the system you run it on.
Actually because the bundled JS itself is quite small for LosslessCut (32MB), it would be theoretically possible to bring-your-own electron (even from source), e.g. use a single system-installed electron that can be shared by many different electron apps, as well as use the system installed ffmpeg. Then you could run `electron Resources/app.asar`. It might be possible to setup such a minimal build.
bscphil|3 years ago
vidcutter is written in Python, built on top of Qt, which is very stable.