Tauri V2 - Trading One Bloat for Another

Published: at 04:06 AM

Building desktop applications with JavaScript has always felt like fitting a square peg into a round hole. JavaScript was never meant to orchestrate file systems, native APIs, or multi-threaded workloads—yet here we are, dragging an entire web engine just to show a settings menu.

And yet, we persist. Why?

Despite its shortcomings, JavaScript gives us the leverage to build, iterate, and deploy faster than any native stack. And frameworks like Electron made that accessible. Tauri, however, proposes something more radical.

Tauri arrived as a lean, secure alternative to Electron—promising smaller binaries, faster startups, and fewer memory leaks. With V2, the framework matures into a more complete desktop solution. But are we eliminating bloat, or just reshuffling it?

The Origin: A Need for Leaner Desktops

Electron’s reputation precedes it: huge binaries, bloated memory usage, and full Chromium runtimes per app. By contrast, Tauri leverages system webviews and compiles to native code, producing binaries measured in megabytes, not hundreds.

# Typical app size comparison
Electron: ~300MB
Tauri V1: ~25MB

The savings are real. But as I migrated multiple apps to Tauri V2, I found new costs emerging—ones that don’t show up on disk.

Beneath the Surface: Tauri’s Hidden Complexity

1. Build System Overhead

Tauri requires an orchestration between frontend and backend:

{
  "build": {
    "beforeDevCommand": "npm run dev",
    "beforeBuildCommand": "npm run build",
    "devPath": "http://localhost:1420",
    "distDir": "../dist"
  },
  "package": {
    "productName": "My Tauri App",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "tauri": {
    "bundle": {
      "targets": "all",
      "identifier": "com.myapp.dev"
    }
  }
}

In contrast, Electron bootstraps with a single package.json. Tauri’s multi-environment nature demands familiarity with Cargo, Rust targets, and JSON config depth.

2. Fragmented Development Experience

You’re working across:

#[tauri::command]
async fn my_command() -> Result<String, String> {
    Ok("Hello from Rust!".into())
}
const { invoke } = window.__TAURI__;
const response = await invoke('my_command');

The boundaries are clean—but mentally, you’re context-switching often.

Trade-offs That Matter

Performance vs. Developer Velocity

Electron favors instant productivity:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron');

Tauri demands more setup and Rust fluency:

fn main() {
    tauri::Builder::default()
        .run(tauri::generate_context!())
        .expect("error running app");
}

Yes, the final product is leaner. But your time-to-feature is longer unless the team is already Rust-proficient.

Security vs. Ease

Tauri’s permission model is airtight—no access unless explicitly granted:

"security": {
  "csp": "default-src 'self'",
  "dangerousRemoteDomainIpcAccess": [
    {
      "domain": "tauri.app",
      "windows": ["main"]
    }
  ]
}

It’s the right move for modern apps—but introduces friction for developers used to Node-level openness.

Real-World Costs

1. Setup Time

# Electron
npm install electron

# Tauri
npm create tauri-app
cargo install tauri-cli
# Setup toolchains and configs

Tauri’s learning curve is gentler than raw Rust—but still sharper than Electron’s.

2. Maintenance Load

You’re managing:

Dependency updates, build errors, and cross-platform quirks multiply.

3. CI/CD Overhead

strategy:
  matrix:
    os: [windows-latest, macos-latest, ubuntu-latest]

Tauri builds require full native toolchains. Electron builds, while large, are easier to automate.

When Tauri V2 Shines

Choose Tauri if:

When Electron Still Wins

Stick with Electron when:

Final Thought

Tauri V2 isn’t Electron’s upgrade—it’s its ideological opposite. One values minimalism and control. The other prioritizes velocity and familiarity.

You’re not avoiding bloat. You’re choosing where you’ll carry it: in your binaries or in your workflow.

Choose deliberately. Ship responsibly.