rust-sdl2 VS upx

I don't think that SDL and WGPU are really comparable. You'd be better off comparing SDL to something like Notan or even the SDL bindings for Rust. That said, SDL will have vastly more learning resources than Wgpu or Notan or any Rust alternative. If you know and like rust you can probably use the resources with the Rust SDL bindings.

Those are 3 very different libraries. Are you looking for something in the middle, or do you want all of the features you described? For what it's worth, there's SLD2 bindings for Rust https://github.com/Rust-SDL2/rust-sdl2

There's already a Rust binding for SDL2. See https://crates.io/crates/sdl2

nope. https://github.com/Rust-SDL2/rust-sdl2/issues/884 emscripten target won't work yet either.

it seems like what you are looking for is sdl2 bindings

Dude. It's literally at most 50 lines of code, the entire project. What kind of documentation do you expect me to write? The library I'm using is this one. I don't know why you'd need to know anything about it since it's purely something that can appear literally anywhere, it's part of the language.

*and* SDL2-sys *and* Rust-SDL2

The SDL2 crate had something like this, and it's an option I'm considering. However, if possible, I'd prefer a different, simpler GUI library, so if there's an input-specialized crate out there that does this, I'd love it.

According to this source:

Following optimization, tools like UPX can compress the resulting binary, significantly reducing file size. This compression is invaluable for resource-constrained environments but adds a decompression step during binary execution.

I have been using UPX but I'm quite sure if there's something out there that offers better compression.

Ah that's nice, long ago I used parchment.js to load a inform7 created z5 file on my website. You could try to compress your executable with upx https://upx.github.io/

In this process, the given packer tool embeds a natively compiled PE into another executable that contains the information needed to unpack the original content and execute it. Perhaps the most well known packer, which is not even for malicious purposes, is Golang's UPX package.

Rewrite in C#, and use an obfuscator on the DLL. You can also write some parts in C++ as many variable and function names are forgotten when compiling. You should also encrypt the PCK, and see if you can embed it. If it's embedded, you can make it more annoying to deal with by packing it with https://upx.github.io/

Another good example of false positives like this would be binaries that are compressed with UPX - the way it works is apparently very similar to how stub-loader malware operates and signature detection tools will flag it as malicious.

This will optimise the release binary to be as small as possible. Additionally with upx we can create really small docker image !

Then I compressed it with upx, cp small.exe smallUpx.exe && upx --brute smallUpx.exe, got a 10752 bytes executable, half the size, but still pretty large