3 ms·

The CPU and memory overhead isn't wasted; it's a tradeoff of computational resources for development resources. So the users are using more electricity and cre

The CPU and memory overhead isn't wasted; it's a tradeoff of computational resources for development resources. So the users are using more electricity and creating more carbon emissions so the development team can do more with fewer people. In a way, it's a way for a company to outsource a part of its development expense to its users and the environment.

dangus 8y ago
My Slack instance is averaging 0.5% CPU usage at the moment. If you consider the 15 W TDP of this CPU we assume that Slack is using no more than .075 Watts of power. Probably much less, since there's no way a nearly-idle 15W TDP CPU is using 15W of energy. How much extra energy does allocated RAM use vs. unallocated RAM? RAM has to be powered as long as your computer is on. I don't think there's any difference. It's fine to be passionate about the environment but it's also important to be realistic and fact-driven. It really doesn't make sense to be telling people to make the most minuscule adjustments to carbon footprint instead of the easy low-hanging fruit (eating less red meat, buying fewer disposable products, being mindful of unneeded purchases, reusing and repairing possessions and purchasing them pre-owned). Turning your screen brightness down, banning Electron, or running Lynx instead of Chrome isn't going to save the planet, even if all 7 billion people in the world did it.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  If you consider the 15 W TDP of this CPU we assume that Slack is using no more than .075 Watts of power. I'll accept that. You've conceded that it's a "tax" of about a tenth of a watt from the entire user base. It's not about saving the planet. It's about the fact that one kind of expense is being saved while another kind of expense is being shifted to the user base. Some people might well find it a worthwhile tradeoff. The market certainly has spoken on this matter. How much extra energy does allocated RAM use vs. unallocated RAM? That's the wrong question with regards to RAM. With regards to RAM, it's more about about a kind of opportunity cost. (Capacity cost?) It's not relevant to casual users who have a top of the line machine just to run their web browser and email. However, it is very relevant for someone with any kind of intensive use case. "Ounces add up to pounds, which add up to pain." It's just much more convenient for the user if their machine stays responsive even when you're doing something intensive. Turning your screen brightness down, banning Electron, or running Lynx instead of Chrome isn't going to save the planet, even if all 7 billion people in the world did it. It's not about saving the planet. It's about following the "money," even if the amounts are minuscule. That said, if the Electron community got together and put together some technology that reduced their collective footprint, that could only benefit them and their users.
_bxg1 8y ago
Literally every layer on top of raw machine code adds overhead. Whether that's the JVM, garbage collection, shared libraries that aren't specialized for your application, VMs running on a shared server, even operating systems themselves. All of these layers trade computational work for developer work. By doing so, they reduce code complexity and allow much more advanced software to be written and distributed to more platforms with less friction. Time that isn't spent debugging an application on the Nth platform can be spent improving features. We can debate whether an individual one of these tradeoffs is a good one, but layering is a fundamental aspect of software engineering and it's hilariously misguided to suggest that it's an inherently bad thing to do.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Who said it's a bad thing to do? I've literally been paid to advocate for VM managed languages starting in the late 90's.

dangus 8y ago

My Slack instance is averaging 0.5% CPU usage at the moment. If you consider the 15 W TDP of this CPU we assume that Slack is using no more than .075 Watts of power. Probably much less, since there's no way a nearly-idle 15W TDP CPU is using 15W of energy. How much extra energy does allocated RAM use vs. unallocated RAM? RAM has to be powered as long as your computer is on. I don't think there's any difference. It's fine to be passionate about the environment but it's also important to be realistic and fact-driven. It really doesn't make sense to be telling people to make the most minuscule adjustments to carbon footprint instead of the easy low-hanging fruit (eating less red meat, buying fewer disposable products, being mindful of unneeded purchases, reusing and repairing possessions and purchasing them pre-owned). Turning your screen brightness down, banning Electron, or running Lynx instead of Chrome isn't going to save the planet, even if all 7 billion people in the world did it.

stcredzero 8y ago
If you consider the 15 W TDP of this CPU we assume that Slack is using no more than .075 Watts of power. I'll accept that. You've conceded that it's a "tax" of about a tenth of a watt from the entire user base. It's not about saving the planet. It's about the fact that one kind of expense is being saved while another kind of expense is being shifted to the user base. Some people might well find it a worthwhile tradeoff. The market certainly has spoken on this matter. How much extra energy does allocated RAM use vs. unallocated RAM? That's the wrong question with regards to RAM. With regards to RAM, it's more about about a kind of opportunity cost. (Capacity cost?) It's not relevant to casual users who have a top of the line machine just to run their web browser and email. However, it is very relevant for someone with any kind of intensive use case. "Ounces add up to pounds, which add up to pain." It's just much more convenient for the user if their machine stays responsive even when you're doing something intensive. Turning your screen brightness down, banning Electron, or running Lynx instead of Chrome isn't going to save the planet, even if all 7 billion people in the world did it. It's not about saving the planet. It's about following the "money," even if the amounts are minuscule. That said, if the Electron community got together and put together some technology that reduced their collective footprint, that could only benefit them and their users.

_bxg1 8y ago

Literally every layer on top of raw machine code adds overhead. Whether that's the JVM, garbage collection, shared libraries that aren't specialized for your application, VMs running on a shared server, even operating systems themselves. All of these layers trade computational work for developer work. By doing so, they reduce code complexity and allow much more advanced software to be written and distributed to more platforms with less friction. Time that isn't spent debugging an application on the Nth platform can be spent improving features. We can debate whether an individual one of these tradeoffs is a good one, but layering is a fundamental aspect of software engineering and it's hilariously misguided to suggest that it's an inherently bad thing to do.

stcredzero 8y ago
Who said it's a bad thing to do? I've literally been paid to advocate for VM managed languages starting in the late 90's.