Looks like a thin wrapper around Tauri. The README doesn't do a good job at explaining why one should use this over Tauri itself.
From what I understand, this project attempts to implement a subset of the Electron API so that the library can act as a "drop-in replacement" for simple enough Electron apps. If this understanding is correct, then I think Electrico has the potential to significantly boost adoption of Tauri.
For those who don't know: Tauri is a collection of Rust libraries that allow using an operating system's "native web view" (WRY) and a Rust backend for the process backing a web view (there is an IPC layer between JS and Rust). The overall result is that, on Mac OS and Windows, one can distribute native executables without needing to bundle either Node.js or Chromium. There is no startup cost of loading Node.js, since a native Rust binary is used. As for the web view itself, startup tends to be faster than Chromium, since the libraries for e.g. WebKit are usually pre-loaded by the OS itself. Tauri apps have near-instant startup time, and I've found it to be a joy to use. The only downside is that the backend must be written in Rust. Electrico seems to help soften the learning curve by providing JavaScript APIs mirroring that of Electron.
Isn’t that just a randomly abandoned version of something of uncertain origin, on average? Why would one want use it? I guess to save distribution space.
I don’t have a “top”-deps itch, but using an arbitrary webview sounds compatibility hell even to me.
At this point most operating systems are ahead of Electron on average, not behind it. Electron takes longer to bundle a new Chrome version than it should. Then it takes a while for applications to actually upgrade Electron versions because that includes the compatibility headaches of keeping up with all of Chrome changes, Node changes, and Electron API changes at the same time. Some apps are years behind on Electron today simply because they don't want the headache of rebuilding Node native dependencies or fixing Electron API breaks and think being on an old build of Chrome and the subsequent risk of unpatched security problems is an okay risk to take.
There is still a long tail of versions you might encounter when using a (security supported OS), but for most Linux distros, macOS, and Windows the worst case in the long tail is now just 6 months behind. (You lose security support if you don't keep up with semiannual OS releases.) If you have reason such as a corporate overlord to also support LTS OSes the worst case is closer to 2 years depending on Unix distro. (Windows WebView2 remembers IE and still requires regular update cadence even on LTS Windows, so WebView2 on today's LTS Windows should still be closer to the 6 month mark than the 2 year mark if following Microsoft's LTS policies, staying within support, and not paying for more complicated LTS contracts.)
It should be very easy with caniuse/MDN statistics to write web apps for any browser of the last six months. If you plan to support macOS you still need to support two (related like siblings) renderers as macOS wants you to use WebKit/Safari and everything else is Chromium in one way or another today, but testing on two browsers shouldn't be a showstopper for many (most?) apps. There are definitely Chrome-only APIs that might appeal to you in building an app, but at that point many of them you can polyfill with a native dependency (a Rust dependency in the Tauri world).
The target you're thinking of with outdated OS webviews is probably Android. Tauri doesn't even support Android; it's a desktop framework.
On both Windows and macOS, the "OS webview" is just a framework binding to the OS-shipped browser (i.e. Edge, Safari); and both Edge and Safari get updated with pretty much every release of the OS (which, in turn, are kept up-to-date in a pretty pushy way these days by Microsoft and Apple.)
Also, in both of these cases, by relying on these OS webviews, you're "sharing" the renderer and other global context with the actual browser (if the user happens to use it), and with all other OS webviews on the machine — rather than each new app needing its own renderer and global context, wasting 1GB+ of memory per app and creating thousands of redundant files on disk for the app's own cache et al.
It's really a pure win vs. Electron for these cases.
On Linux, what you get depends on the distribution format. If distributed as a package, you get a dynamic binding to WebKitGtk — which requires the package manager to resolve and install this (and that might not work, if the distro doesn't ship that package.) If distributed as an .AppImage, you get a vendored-in copy of WebKitGtk — which is basically the same as what you get from Electron.
Not really. MacOS’s webview is kept relatively up to date with whatever version of Safari is current when the OS is released. Webview2 on Windows receives regular updates via Windows Update.
You encounter the exact same compatibility issues you would on the web, with a somewhat slower uptake to new versions. Not ideal but entirely manageable.
> why would one want to use it
Primarily because (last I checked, anyway) any app using Electron has to bundle its own version of Chromium, which is massive. It also means each Electron-powered app is totally ignorant of the other, resulting in a lot of duplication and unnecessary memory usage. When you use the system webview you have minimal bulk and resources can be shared, as if they’re multiple tabs in one browser rather than each one being its own browser.
Personally I'd agree with this. I'd also include saving the RAM of loading an independent version of Chrome for every electron app would be nice. Last, I never understood what version of chrome gets bundled with these electron apps. Is it more or less secure than WRY?
From my understanding the main difference between electron and other WebView Containers (besides built-in APIs) is that electron runs your nodejs code in the same process as your browser code.
So there is no cross-process communication, true synchronous communication between browser and nodejs code, ability to communicate without copying memory and without serialization, etc. All these capabilities are essential if you do a lot of processing between the two sides. It is also why electron must bundle a browser (and its v8 engine) and can't rely on the OS browser like other solutions do (which might not be v8 or might be the wrong version of v8).
From my understanding this is not the case of any other WebView wrappers tech (Tauri, Wails). Which makes them unsuitable for some kinds of applications (invoking a function cross-process is extremely slow).
I am not sure how correct I am with these claims as I never did a lot of electron. If you have a deeper insight I am quite curious about the topic.
In the case of Electron, there is a "main process" that is a Node.js process. This process has the capability to spawn "renderer processes", each browser window is a "renderer process". Through ipcMain and ipcRenderer, Node and Chromium have bidirectional comminication.
I don't think renderer processes run Node. Per the documentation,
[C]ode ran in renderer processes should behave according to web standards ... [T]he renderer has no direct access to require or other Node.js APIs
>From my understanding the main difference between electron and other WebView Containers (besides built-in APIs) is that electron runs your nodejs code in the same process as your browser code.
> So there is no cross-process communication, true synchronous communication between browser and nodejs code, ability to communicate without copying memory and without serialization, etc
From the Electrton docs:
> Arguments will be serialized with the Structured Clone Algorithm, just like window.postMessage, so prototype chains will not be included. Sending Functions, Promises, Symbols, WeakMaps, or WeakSets will throw an exception.
In a recent podcast, Daniel Thompson from Tauri talks about the perspective of having shared memory between the Webview and the backend in Tauri as well. However, it is pretty vague.
Isnt another downside that the javascript in the OS web view could be different and lead to having to support a significant number of different webview versions. If you ship chrome with your app, you get to choose the conformance.
Is it possible to have some kind of electron/tauri/,.. based runtime, but without the actual app? The users would need to install this runtime only once.
The apps would need to be installed separately.
The apps could be just the plain html/js/css/assets maybe packed within a zip, with a dedicated extension. The runtime would take care of the installation.
That way the devs could develop with their FE-stack of their choice and ship just the small packages.
Does this make sense?
It does sound a lot like what Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) are supposed to be. It's very close to how the original Manifest.json worked when given an html/js/css/assets list.
Only a couple of browsers supported that version of Manifest.json. Chrome developers thought it was too much of an 80/20 solution and decided to get deep in the weeds of the 20% instead of delivering the 80% solution while they worked. That's what got us the way too low level and hard to reason with Service Worker APIs for PWAs. It's over-engineered for the 20% of use cases in a way that makes "easy" 80% so much harder than it ever should have been. Chrome developers still randomly promise the web that the "easy high level API" will arrive any day now, but looking at the mess that is Workbox (their team's supposed-to-be high level building block library for Service Worker PWA APIs) it still doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
It's more the shame because we briefly had a simple JSON manifest format for assets. That JSON format should have been easy to emulate in the Service Worker APIs if those APIs truly were meant to solve the problem, not just solving more interesting problems in a related space that a minority of use cases needed. Google doesn't currently have enough incentive to make PWAs easy to build, and as long as Chrome is the majority browser, Google is the major obstacle.
This doesn’t work. Developers move on to a next version for reasons out of their control. Now a user has a version hell, just like c:\python{all, sorts, of, versions}, and probably a versioned file extension. Bundling tens of megabytes is not a problem for the last ten years. Having everything you need right in your backpack is a good thing for everyone.
It could be feasible if software communities didn’t tend to underimplement features and then solve them by intertwining all sorts of dependencies and their maintenance policies. For example, for as controlled thing as typescript, there are at least four popular ways to “just run” projects, all with different quirks and issues (tsc & node, ts-node, swc-node, tsx). Although it was obvious that people would want to run and watch .ts files based on tsconfig.json, without an explicit compilation step.
I guess that sounds like the normal web/progressive web apps/web archives (especially with the push to more platform APIs in browsers)? Also, Tauri uses the system's WebView2/Webkit runtime, so it essentially works like this already.
This is a pretty standard type of architecture, it's essentially how anything that runs on a virtual machine works. Back when visual basic was popular, it actually surprised me that Microsoft never ended up bundling the VBDLL files with the OS itself allowing developers to ship significantly smaller installation bundles.
Those projects in general have Alot of problem, AND this is a wrapper on top of them.
>Wry also needs WebKitGTK for WebView.
WebKit have a lot more security problems and compatibility issues and are not as updated as chromium based, electron.
There's nothing wrong about chromium based engines like electron. They are just a little bigger for download a little slow to start but that's it. If your code is well developed they are fast and snappy.
Discord is one good example also vscode
WebKitGTK has some really bad performance issues. I've written an app using Tauri and it works very well on Mac and Windows, and it does nothing particularly intensive. On Linux the performance is awful. The Tauri devs acknowledge this and seem to have plans to move off it, but moving to another solution (basically packaging chrome like electron does) is obviously a lot of work.
Yeah, I tried Tauri for a bit, and this was the primary issue I quickly found as well. Generally you use these kinds of tools to be able to easily do cross-platform UI. With Tauri every single OS you target will use a different underlying web browser engine, which means you'll still be running into many platform specific issues.
Especially webkitGTK is just a drama, it's barely able to do layout for basic tables in a performant manner.
In my experience in the current implementation Tauri is not ready for production. I've seen some preliminary work by the Tauri devs to investigate if they could use some standardized webview engine, but that's still very far away.
Well as a user I appreciate a software that make improvements all the time. Discord add good features, why should I complain about a lot of updates?
VSCode use as much memory as you add extensions. I agree it uses up memory but Jetbrain and Fleet performance is also as bad if not worse then vscode and they use alot more mem.
If u want vscode as just text editor Just disable all the included default extensions.
I like this, as the author of LRCGET (which is made with Tauri), I hate debugging something that works on Windows (Microsoft Edge WebView2) but doesn't work well or doesn't work at all on Linux (Webkit2gtk) or macOS.
One of the example is audio playback. Chromium and in turn Edge WebView2 have great support, but make it work in Webkit2gtk is a big pain in the *s. I then decided to switch the audio playback feature to Rust side (using Kira and Symphonia) instead.
Having Chromium bundled eliminates all the pain about inconsistency between webview engines, and using Rust means we don't have to pay for the NodeJS size in our app bundle (plus better performance).
For Tauri, I think something like Servo will fit well as bundled browser engine. Hopefully some day it will happen.
Readit News
From what I understand, this project attempts to implement a subset of the Electron API so that the library can act as a "drop-in replacement" for simple enough Electron apps. If this understanding is correct, then I think Electrico has the potential to significantly boost adoption of Tauri.
For those who don't know: Tauri is a collection of Rust libraries that allow using an operating system's "native web view" (WRY) and a Rust backend for the process backing a web view (there is an IPC layer between JS and Rust). The overall result is that, on Mac OS and Windows, one can distribute native executables without needing to bundle either Node.js or Chromium. There is no startup cost of loading Node.js, since a native Rust binary is used. As for the web view itself, startup tends to be faster than Chromium, since the libraries for e.g. WebKit are usually pre-loaded by the OS itself. Tauri apps have near-instant startup time, and I've found it to be a joy to use. The only downside is that the backend must be written in Rust. Electrico seems to help soften the learning curve by providing JavaScript APIs mirroring that of Electron.
Overall, nice project.
Isn’t that just a randomly abandoned version of something of uncertain origin, on average? Why would one want use it? I guess to save distribution space.
I don’t have a “top”-deps itch, but using an arbitrary webview sounds compatibility hell even to me.
There is still a long tail of versions you might encounter when using a (security supported OS), but for most Linux distros, macOS, and Windows the worst case in the long tail is now just 6 months behind. (You lose security support if you don't keep up with semiannual OS releases.) If you have reason such as a corporate overlord to also support LTS OSes the worst case is closer to 2 years depending on Unix distro. (Windows WebView2 remembers IE and still requires regular update cadence even on LTS Windows, so WebView2 on today's LTS Windows should still be closer to the 6 month mark than the 2 year mark if following Microsoft's LTS policies, staying within support, and not paying for more complicated LTS contracts.)
It should be very easy with caniuse/MDN statistics to write web apps for any browser of the last six months. If you plan to support macOS you still need to support two (related like siblings) renderers as macOS wants you to use WebKit/Safari and everything else is Chromium in one way or another today, but testing on two browsers shouldn't be a showstopper for many (most?) apps. There are definitely Chrome-only APIs that might appeal to you in building an app, but at that point many of them you can polyfill with a native dependency (a Rust dependency in the Tauri world).
On both Windows and macOS, the "OS webview" is just a framework binding to the OS-shipped browser (i.e. Edge, Safari); and both Edge and Safari get updated with pretty much every release of the OS (which, in turn, are kept up-to-date in a pretty pushy way these days by Microsoft and Apple.)
Also, in both of these cases, by relying on these OS webviews, you're "sharing" the renderer and other global context with the actual browser (if the user happens to use it), and with all other OS webviews on the machine — rather than each new app needing its own renderer and global context, wasting 1GB+ of memory per app and creating thousands of redundant files on disk for the app's own cache et al.
It's really a pure win vs. Electron for these cases.
On Linux, what you get depends on the distribution format. If distributed as a package, you get a dynamic binding to WebKitGtk — which requires the package manager to resolve and install this (and that might not work, if the distro doesn't ship that package.) If distributed as an .AppImage, you get a vendored-in copy of WebKitGtk — which is basically the same as what you get from Electron.
You encounter the exact same compatibility issues you would on the web, with a somewhat slower uptake to new versions. Not ideal but entirely manageable.
> why would one want to use it
Primarily because (last I checked, anyway) any app using Electron has to bundle its own version of Chromium, which is massive. It also means each Electron-powered app is totally ignorant of the other, resulting in a lot of duplication and unnecessary memory usage. When you use the system webview you have minimal bulk and resources can be shared, as if they’re multiple tabs in one browser rather than each one being its own browser.
Personally I'd agree with this. I'd also include saving the RAM of loading an independent version of Chrome for every electron app would be nice. Last, I never understood what version of chrome gets bundled with these electron apps. Is it more or less secure than WRY?
A bit less uncertainty via: https://v2.tauri.app/reference/webview-versions/
So there is no cross-process communication, true synchronous communication between browser and nodejs code, ability to communicate without copying memory and without serialization, etc. All these capabilities are essential if you do a lot of processing between the two sides. It is also why electron must bundle a browser (and its v8 engine) and can't rely on the OS browser like other solutions do (which might not be v8 or might be the wrong version of v8).
From my understanding this is not the case of any other WebView wrappers tech (Tauri, Wails). Which makes them unsuitable for some kinds of applications (invoking a function cross-process is extremely slow).
I am not sure how correct I am with these claims as I never did a lot of electron. If you have a deeper insight I am quite curious about the topic.
I don't think renderer processes run Node. Per the documentation,
https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/tutorial/process-mode...That is not correct: https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/tutorial/process-mode...
> So there is no cross-process communication, true synchronous communication between browser and nodejs code, ability to communicate without copying memory and without serialization, etc
From the Electrton docs:
> Arguments will be serialized with the Structured Clone Algorithm, just like window.postMessage, so prototype chains will not be included. Sending Functions, Promises, Symbols, WeakMaps, or WeakSets will throw an exception.
(https://www.electronjs.org/docs/latest/api/ipc-renderer#ipcr...)
But yes they do build pretty heavily on Chromium, so swapping it out for a system WebView would probably not be possible.
See here, search for "Topic 12": https://syntax.fm/show/821/is-tauri-the-electron-killer/tran...
This seems very overlooked in your evaluation.
Only a couple of browsers supported that version of Manifest.json. Chrome developers thought it was too much of an 80/20 solution and decided to get deep in the weeds of the 20% instead of delivering the 80% solution while they worked. That's what got us the way too low level and hard to reason with Service Worker APIs for PWAs. It's over-engineered for the 20% of use cases in a way that makes "easy" 80% so much harder than it ever should have been. Chrome developers still randomly promise the web that the "easy high level API" will arrive any day now, but looking at the mess that is Workbox (their team's supposed-to-be high level building block library for Service Worker PWA APIs) it still doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
It's more the shame because we briefly had a simple JSON manifest format for assets. That JSON format should have been easy to emulate in the Service Worker APIs if those APIs truly were meant to solve the problem, not just solving more interesting problems in a related space that a minority of use cases needed. Google doesn't currently have enough incentive to make PWAs easy to build, and as long as Chrome is the majority browser, Google is the major obstacle.
It could be feasible if software communities didn’t tend to underimplement features and then solve them by intertwining all sorts of dependencies and their maintenance policies. For example, for as controlled thing as typescript, there are at least four popular ways to “just run” projects, all with different quirks and issues (tsc & node, ts-node, swc-node, tsx). Although it was obvious that people would want to run and watch .ts files based on tsconfig.json, without an explicit compilation step.
>Wry also needs WebKitGTK for WebView.
WebKit have a lot more security problems and compatibility issues and are not as updated as chromium based, electron.
There's nothing wrong about chromium based engines like electron. They are just a little bigger for download a little slow to start but that's it. If your code is well developed they are fast and snappy. Discord is one good example also vscode
e.g, it took Igalia getting involved to move more things to the GPU when other platforms more or less had that by default already.
https://blogs.igalia.com/carlosgc/2024/02/19/webkit-switchin...
Especially webkitGTK is just a drama, it's barely able to do layout for basic tables in a performant manner.
In my experience in the current implementation Tauri is not ready for production. I've seen some preliminary work by the Tauri devs to investigate if they could use some standardized webview engine, but that's still very far away.
That is big engineering task and not something a small group of devs can do.
Only thing that could comes close is building electron and chromium compatible api on top of Zed team's UI engine.
Discord constantly downloads huge updates and vscode uses too much memory (not counting LSP) for text editor.
VSCode use as much memory as you add extensions. I agree it uses up memory but Jetbrain and Fleet performance is also as bad if not worse then vscode and they use alot more mem.
If u want vscode as just text editor Just disable all the included default extensions.
One of the example is audio playback. Chromium and in turn Edge WebView2 have great support, but make it work in Webkit2gtk is a big pain in the *s. I then decided to switch the audio playback feature to Rust side (using Kira and Symphonia) instead.
Having Chromium bundled eliminates all the pain about inconsistency between webview engines, and using Rust means we don't have to pay for the NodeJS size in our app bundle (plus better performance).
For Tauri, I think something like Servo will fit well as bundled browser engine. Hopefully some day it will happen.
I like how Linux is so important it gets two mentions, but Windows is left out. Presumably that's a typo though?
Deleted Comment
Only supports ARM Mac at the moment but windows and linux support coming soon.
https://www.electrobun.dev