quickjspp VS just

I think that my Storage implementation that is built-in into JavaScript in QuickJS and Sciter is still unbeatable as an integrated JS Storage solution:

"custom version of React he publishes..."

It is not a a custom version of React but rather extension of DOM model by just these:

1. Native JSX support. In Sciter QuickJS was extended to support JSX literals out of the box: https://github.com/c-smile/quickjspp/blob/master/quickjs-jsx...

2. Native methods:

   - Element.patch(...JSX expression...) - native VDOM reconciliation implementation.

In fact 1.8 Mb is quite a lot for QuickJS.

Whole Sciter engine that includes as QuickJS as HTML/CSS engines is about 6 Mb.

My port of QuickJS [1] that also includes persistent storage (think of MongoDB built into JS) is 736 Kb on Windows.

[1] https://github.com/c-smile/quickjspp

I've added built-in persistence to QuickJS: https://github.com/c-smile/quickjspp/blob/master/storage/doc/introduction.md

I might go a little offtopic here. Any plans to integrate https://github.com/c-smile/quickjspp. That way you can target mobile platforms too. QT supports mobiles well

As for desktop only this is great. Great work. Many people are commenting on NodeGUI only. They have forgotten to mention how Svelte also contribytes to saving memory footprint and cpu cycles over other frameworks with a much easier way to write apps. Add a small learning curve to that.

I've added JSX to JS used in Sciter that allowed to have JSX available for Mithril and PReact

just

https://github.com/just-js/just Is another for a V8 runtime, it really shows how well optimized it is. https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r21

i just tried recompiling v0.0.2 (https://github.com/just-js/just/releases/tag/0.0.2) of just-js and comparing it to current. for the completely static build on ubuntu 22.04 i see following:

0.0.2 (v8 v8.4.371.18) - file size: 15.2 MB, startup RSS: 8.4 MB

Not at all. Javascript, as well as java compiled into the bytecode, but just incrementally and at the runtime. You cannot compile typescript into bytecode directly (at least it intend to be like that). You can even compile js to executable (https://github.com/just-js/just). So no, typescript transpiles to javascript, whereas scala compiles to bytecode, it's different things

Trust me, these guys are insane and go to really extreme levels and use optimization techniques which are not generally prevalent among the general programming fraternity. for eg, look at pico.v it is awesome and just-js is truly unbelievable, then there is faf, most of them combine low level programming trickery to reach those insane numbers. Also some of the code may not be useful in a production app but they actually extract the juice out of the metal at every instance. Memory optimizations, compiler optimizations, postgresql wire implmentations, rust black magic, these guys are really crazy and passionate.