lightweight vs minimal

jbusch · 2009-07-19 23:40:56

When working with arch linux (or even linux in general), the terms 'lightweight' and 'minimal' are thrown around quite a bit. They same to be loosely defined words, and are applied to quite a variety of things. I've even seen the two terms used interchangeably (gasp).

On their own, the words mean two completely different things. Yet somehow, in regards to code, they have apparently induced some confusion (for me, atleast). So:

What characteristics must a program exhibit in order to be considered lightweight? Minimal?

What is the relationship between these two terms? Does lightweight software have to be minimal? Does minimal software have to be lightweight?

(note: I mean 'have to be' in the most general sense possible. I realize there will always be exceptions to the rule, and I wanted a discussion on a more level playing field)

- J

edit: grammar

Last edited by jbusch (2009-07-19 23:41:20)

Meyithi · 2009-07-19 23:49:35

Hmmm, I consider Lightweight to be as a Lightweight Fighter - sleek, energetic and fast. Minimal I consider to be uncomplicated, focused and specific.

As an example I'd say Openbox was lightweight but not minimal, but that's just me.

deadlylife · 2009-07-20 00:05:13

I see leightweight as being as small as possible to accomplish a certain task perfectly, and minimal, just as small as possible, regardless of the goal.

fflarex · 2009-07-20 00:18:09

Lightweight means a program uses my computer's resources efficiently and doesn't have many dependencies. Minimal means a program has deliberately omitted any features which are unnecessary to achieving its goal. These terms overlap often, but not always. For example: vim is lightweight but not minimal, fish is minimal but not lightweight.

Last edited by fflarex (2009-07-20 00:25:11)

Dieter@be · 2009-07-20 10:51:23

for me, lightweight == minimal, but I have 2 meanings:

- small amount of sloc
- small amount of cpu/disk/memory consumption

For me personally, the first is most important to me (being a control freak and all that)

tlvb · 2009-07-20 11:47:33

Personally both terms describes low system resource usage, however minimal is an 'absolute' term while lightweight takes what the application accomplishes into account. Minimal can also be used to describe the number of implemented functions.

Lexion · 2009-07-20 17:51:53

imho, minimal is lightweight, but lightweight is not minimal.

xfce is lightweight, but by no means minimal. Dwm is minimal, and as a result, lightweight (and lighterweight than xfce).

Last edited by Lexion (2009-07-20 17:52:09)

tadzik · 2009-07-20 18:00:25

Minimal methinks is more related to features, not to performance.
Regards.

olovram · 2009-07-20 19:31:03

fflarex wrote:

Lightweight means a program uses my computer's resources efficiently and doesn't have many dependencies. Minimal means a program has deliberately omitted any features which are unnecessary to achieving its goal. These terms overlap often, but not always. For example: vim is lightweight but not minimal, fish is minimal but not lightweight.

+1

quarkup · 2009-07-20 20:17:57

try fluxbox.

that's minimal: just 1Mb, and lightweight (fast, simple)..

jbusch · 2009-07-20 22:46:09

quarkup wrote:

try fluxbox.
that's minimal: just 1Mb, and lightweight (fast, simple)..

Which is where we get in to semantics, relativity, and such. I actually left fluxbox a couple of months back because it wasn't 'minimal' enough (that panel annoyed me, along with a few other minor details). I'm currently running evilwm (which makes fluxbox look like a giant in comparison).

So I'm inclined to accept the fact that lightweight and minimal are relative terms. But, is there a point where something is no longer lightweight or minimal? Or is this solely an individual interpretation?

Thanks for all the great discussion, people.

- J

Ranguvar · 2009-07-20 23:35:39

@jbusch: Solely an individual interpretation, IMO. But there are some things almost everyone agrees on... for example, emacs is neither lightweight OR minimal.
I would say that vim could be considered minimal, too... Well, maybe not. nvi or elvis then, or the original vi.

I agree that minimal has to do with the focus of a project and its "feel", whereas lightweight is a more technical term that has to do with good use of system resources, small in size, etc.

Rasi · 2009-07-21 00:42:32

Ranguvar wrote:

@jbusch: Solely an individual interpretation, IMO. But there are some things almost everyone agrees on... for example, emacs is neither lightweight OR minimal.
I would say that vim could be considered minimal, too... Well, maybe not. nvi or elvis then, or the original vi.
I agree that minimal has to do with the focus of a project and its "feel", whereas lightweight is a more technical term that has to do with good use of system resources, small in size, etc.

But isnt emacs goal to be able to do EVERY imaginable task? with such a definition the word minimal becomes huge suddenly

madalu · 2009-07-21 03:24:40

Rasi wrote:

Ranguvar wrote:
But there are some things almost everyone
agrees on... for example, emacs is neither lightweight OR minimal.
But isnt emacs goal to be able to do EVERY imaginable task? with such
a definition the word minimal becomes huge suddenly

As a text editor, emacs is not minimal.

As an operating system and integrated computing environment, emacs
could perhaps be considered minimal.

With emacs, the boundaries between text editor, word processor, email
client, PIM, chat client, web browser, etc. simply melt away. I would
consider this a different sort of minimal: i.e., one tool to rule them
all.

Last edited by madalu (2009-07-21 03:25:41)

Dieter@be · 2009-07-21 07:52:57

Ranguvar wrote:

@jbusch: Solely an individual interpretation, IMO. But there are some things almost everyone agrees on... for example, emacs is neither lightweight OR minimal.
I would say that vim could be considered minimal, too... Well, maybe not. nvi or elvis then, or the original vi.

Imho vim is pretty bloated. I wonder if there's any human on this planet who even understands all vims options and possibilities. maybe only it's author..

broch · 2009-07-21 13:25:02

When working with arch linux (or even linux in general), the terms 'lightweight' and 'minimal' are thrown around quite a bit. They same to be loosely defined words, and are applied to quite a variety of things. I've even seen the two terms used interchangeably (gasp).

wheter you accept local definition of minimal lightweight or not is entirely up to you but in this case unless you delve really deep into etymology whichever point you would make it does not matter nor is more or less correct.
Now I seriously doubt that you can make a serious case that in for these are not related as minimal will include lightweight.. in specific circumstances:
1) minimal/lightweight server can translate (in terms of resources) to heavily loaded desktop
2) I can configure KDE in such a way that it will take 87MB after boot this is quite lightweight/minimal for KDE but not for blackbox or even more cli
3) your minimal/lightweight is not mine as there is no rule that would define either

The first post is simply wrong making any following argument correct.

pepeapepepe · 2009-07-31 19:50:25

Dieter@be wrote:

Imho vim is pretty bloated. I wonder if there's any human on this planet who even understands all vims options and possibilities. maybe only it's author..

+1 to the vim opinion. althought ed is quite extreme about beeing minimalist.

Maybe adding text editing capabilities to the uzbl browser...

app4des · 2009-08-02 09:54:06

I think that minimalist and lightweight software *should* be the same, but unfortunately that is not the case in many situations. Take Gnome for example, the programs it includes and the DE itself is very minimal, basic and simple (something like Windows 95 era?), but for a strange reason it has very bad performance compared to the stuff it offers.

Examples like those make the minimal and lightweight terms differ.

I don't think that the size (in MBs) of software matters in 2009. Even 1TB disks are pretty cheap, it doesn't matter if a program consumes 5mb or 500mb in the disk as long as it has satisfactory performance.

Last edited by app4des (2009-08-02 09:58:49)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-19 23:40:56

lightweight vs minimal

#2 2009-07-19 23:49:35

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#3 2009-07-20 00:05:13

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#4 2009-07-20 00:18:09

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#5 2009-07-20 10:51:23

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#6 2009-07-20 11:47:33

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#7 2009-07-20 17:51:53

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#8 2009-07-20 18:00:25

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#9 2009-07-20 19:31:03

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#10 2009-07-20 20:17:57

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#11 2009-07-20 22:46:09

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#12 2009-07-20 23:35:39

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#13 2009-07-21 00:42:32

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#14 2009-07-21 03:24:40

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#15 2009-07-21 07:52:57

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#16 2009-07-21 13:25:02

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#17 2009-07-31 19:50:25

Re: lightweight vs minimal

#18 2009-08-02 09:54:06

Re: lightweight vs minimal

Board footer