4 ms·

In this screenshot, this app is using 286MB of memory and the official Slack app is using 200MB, how is this better? fwiw, this is how the original Slack Mac a

In this screenshot, this app is using 286MB of memory and the official Slack app is using 200MB, how is this better? fwiw, this is how the original Slack Mac app worked and it sucked. We had to tell users to upgrade their OS so that their app worked, because NSWebView (and WKWebView) are tied to the OS release. If their computer was too old, telling a customer to Buy a new Mac is a pretty terrible experience.

masklinn 6y ago
> In this screenshot, this app is using 286MB of memory and the official Slack app is using 200MB, how is this better? Yes not sure where they got the 1.2x ratio in their favor, although if we're only rounding to the nearest unit the official slack uses 220MB, not 200. TBF the machine has plenty of memory available, so trading some memory for less CPU time, less GPU time, better idling and faster startup seems… a pretty good tradeoff. The one thing I'm doubtful of is whether the official slack application really does nothing but wrap the webapp with no additional functions?
- anaisbetts 6y ago
  It does not - the Slack app injects extra APIs into the DOM, and the Slack webapp recognizes it's being loaded in the Desktop app and adds additional functionality (the Downloads pane for example)
- sriku 6y ago
  > the machine has plenty of memory available On my MacBookAir with 4GB of RAM, Gmail+GCalendar+Slack+GChat+Trello+Docs is enough to put memory pressure on the system. Gmail+Calendar alone end up taking up 1.5-2GB after a while. No respect for memory.
  - devwastaken 6y ago
    No one should subscribe to building software for a purposefully underpowered and outrageously overpriced computer. You have the responsibility to have better hardware than a 2005 pc.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      You think 4GB was anywhere near common for a 2005 PC?
helge5 6y ago
My primary goal for Shrugs wasn't better memory efficiency but a better user experience (i.e. using native controls, having multiple windows, quicklook, etc). It uses quite some memory because it does (too) aggressive caching and prefetching of messages (I have enough RAM, fast access was more important to me). It is worth noting that the official Slack app has gotten massively more memory efficient about a 1.5y ago, its bad reputation comes from the time before that (when it easily used more than 1GB of RAM). (I think it still has other performance issues, but they aren't as big anymore, it is doing quite well IMO) Having said that I'm working on improving memory consumption in Shrugs.app - it is a tentpole feature planned for v1.1 (it'll take some time until this will be ready though).
- helge5 6y ago
  Oh, the original comment was about the WebKit wrapper. Well, that this is using as much memory isn't very surprising. Why would Slack use less memory in a WKWebView than in an Electron frame? It is essentially the same app (with the Electron app providing a set of extra platform integration benefits). Any performance differences between the two approaches should essentially boil down to the Chrome vs Safari differences.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Safari happens to not be an absolute RAM hog ;)
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Just looked up your app. Love the idea but still too many features missing, especially editing messages. I'll keep an eye on it. I have no problems buying after it gets good enough. Thanks for your work.
  - helge5 6y ago
    Thanks! Yes, it is very 1.0 and lacks quite some features. Message editing falls in the same batch of work like the RAM improvements and will very likely be part of 1.1.
hkgumbs 6y ago
Author here—that's pretty embarrassing, and I'm not sure how I messed that up. I do recall having to retake the Activity Monitor screenshots between drafts, so I'm going to blame my mistake on that. Adding an editorial note now!

masklinn 6y ago

> In this screenshot, this app is using 286MB of memory and the official Slack app is using 200MB, how is this better? Yes not sure where they got the 1.2x ratio in their favor, although if we're only rounding to the nearest unit the official slack uses 220MB, not 200. TBF the machine has plenty of memory available, so trading some memory for less CPU time, less GPU time, better idling and faster startup seems… a pretty good tradeoff. The one thing I'm doubtful of is whether the official slack application really does nothing but wrap the webapp with no additional functions?

anaisbetts 6y ago
It does not - the Slack app injects extra APIs into the DOM, and the Slack webapp recognizes it's being loaded in the Desktop app and adds additional functionality (the Downloads pane for example)
sriku 6y ago
> the machine has plenty of memory available On my MacBookAir with 4GB of RAM, Gmail+GCalendar+Slack+GChat+Trello+Docs is enough to put memory pressure on the system. Gmail+Calendar alone end up taking up 1.5-2GB after a while. No respect for memory.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  No one should subscribe to building software for a purposefully underpowered and outrageously overpriced computer. You have the responsibility to have better hardware than a 2005 pc.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    You think 4GB was anywhere near common for a 2005 PC?

helge5 6y ago

My primary goal for Shrugs wasn't better memory efficiency but a better user experience (i.e. using native controls, having multiple windows, quicklook, etc). It uses quite some memory because it does (too) aggressive caching and prefetching of messages (I have enough RAM, fast access was more important to me). It is worth noting that the official Slack app has gotten massively more memory efficient about a 1.5y ago, its bad reputation comes from the time before that (when it easily used more than 1GB of RAM). (I think it still has other performance issues, but they aren't as big anymore, it is doing quite well IMO) Having said that I'm working on improving memory consumption in Shrugs.app - it is a tentpole feature planned for v1.1 (it'll take some time until this will be ready though).

helge5 6y ago
Oh, the original comment was about the WebKit wrapper. Well, that this is using as much memory isn't very surprising. Why would Slack use less memory in a WKWebView than in an Electron frame? It is essentially the same app (with the Electron app providing a set of extra platform integration benefits). Any performance differences between the two approaches should essentially boil down to the Chrome vs Safari differences.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Safari happens to not be an absolute RAM hog ;)
pdimitar 6y ago
Just looked up your app. Love the idea but still too many features missing, especially editing messages. I'll keep an eye on it. I have no problems buying after it gets good enough. Thanks for your work.
- helge5 6y ago
  Thanks! Yes, it is very 1.0 and lacks quite some features. Message editing falls in the same batch of work like the RAM improvements and will very likely be part of 1.1.

hkgumbs 6y ago

Author here—that's pretty embarrassing, and I'm not sure how I messed that up. I do recall having to retake the Activity Monitor screenshots between drafts, so I'm going to blame my mistake on that. Adding an editorial note now!