pkg VS gulp

You don't even need that: https://github.com/vercel/pkg.

I think there are equivalents in the Python ecosystem.

Another exciting feature is the ability to build a single-executable Node.js binary. Before Node.js v18, the only way to build a Node.js binary was to use a third-party package, like pkg.

As a comparison I am using https://github.com/vercel/pkg to package my Node.js app into an exe file. Vercel-pkg allows me to build different images for different platforms like Windows, Linux, Mac. It would be nice if it could produce a single .exe that worked on all platforms. But I guess such an exe would have to be bigger. It is not too cumbersome to produce one exe per platform that my users need.

To run NodeJS as a sidecar we need to pack it into binary. Taurine is bundling your server code and preparing it for packing into a single binary. Using Vercel’s pkg CLI tool we can compile it into a single executable binary. That binary is running with the Tauri application.

What if you packaged the whole thing into one executable using pkg?

In addition to the other responses, there are node packages like pkg and nexe that you can use to package the node executable and your code into a single executable.

Not really, at last check it just bundles the entire .Net runtime with the compiled image. It's basically the equivalent of https://github.com/vercel/pkg or similar tools.

You can even pack your terminal application in a single binary that does not require separate NodeJS installed via pkg.

GULP: Gulp is basically a task automation tool. The file that you create in this tool, is a plain JavaScript file that you can run to automate you menial tasks. It comes under the category of package manager. Gulp is very developer friendly and easy to learn. For more info: https://gulpjs.com/

[Gulp]:

With the pre-processors, you can shrink your CSS and increase reuse through variables. In almost all working cases, it will be an improvement above vanilla CSS. There are also implementations now, via PostCSS, that add vendor prefixes for you. The major drawback is, of course, that you have to compile your CSS beforehand; usually done via part of your tooling such as Grunt or Gulp.

As far as build tools go I remember how popular Grunt was when it was first released, then it was Gulp, and Babel came along to help you add new us features and get them working on older browsers.

Gulp

Support this, highly recommend learning SASS https://sass-lang.com/ once you master that checkout Gulp, https://gulpjs.com/ then use them together,

One potential concern with PageCrypt is that it only encrypts an HTML file by default. If you want to encrypt your CSS and JavaScript files, you’ll have to inline them in the HTML file. The same applies to images and any other binary assets; you’ll have to inline them as Data URIs. As with any authentication and authorization solution, you’ll want to determine what’s acceptable for your security requirements. Maybe you’re comfortable with the risk of images leaking but have higher security requirements for your JavaScript. In that case, the HTML page can link to the image files but should contain all your JavaScript. You can use many static site build tools to automate inlining assets in HTML. Webpack, Gulp, or Grunt are just a few that might be useful.