5 ms·

20 MB is less than 0.25% of my desktop machine's memory, and 2% of a 2010-era netbook. 20 MB, while much larger than what it has to be, is tiny even by the stan

by fouric 6y ago

20 MB is less than 0.25% of my desktop machine's memory, and 2% of a 2010-era netbook. 20 MB, while much larger than what it has to be, is tiny even by the standards of decade-old computers. RAM is cheap and plentiful. If you don't use it, its value is almost zero (the "almost" comes from OS-level caching of files and CPU-level cache misses of code).

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
> If you don't use it, its value is almost zero Yet if you use all of it, its value is also zero - to every other program on the same computer. Don't be a dick; Use what you need, not all you can.
- texasbigdata 6y ago
  Conversely, to the end user, if they could pick a bit more resources usage (knowing they can close your app, or heaven forbid uninstall it) versus an extra feature what should the dev team prioritise?
- fouric 6y ago
  This is ridiculous. 20 MB is so far from "all of it" on any modern computer that it makes me question if you're using something from the 90's. How are you even on Hacker News? The reduction of the complex trade-off between memory use, CPU, disk, development environment, ease of deployment, and the dozen other variables that go into a choice like picking what toolkit to use to "don't be a dick" is so absurdly simplistic. It's a trade-off - not a single-axis "good or bad" decision. Moreover, 20 MB of memory usage is going to be an acceptable trade-off for the majority of HN users, who skew webdev, not embedded.
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    > This is ridiculous. 20 MB is so far from "all of it" on any modern computer that it makes me question if you're using something from the 90's. If I look at today's top seller computers in Amazon for my country (France, 6th economic power in the world), the top two models both come with 4G of RAM (a chromebook, and a win10). The windows one will already use ~2gigs just for the OS. That leaves 2 gigs of RAM for your apps. And that's for computers being sold today - they will still be in use in five years.
    - fouric 6y ago
      Meanwhile, you can fit 100 20MB apps into 2GB. I've never seen a normal desktop user use more than 10 graphical applications at once. I've never used more than 20 at once myself. It's pretty clear that 2O MB of RAM as baseline memory consumption for a graphical application (we're not talking about a runtime that might be used for a bunch of background processes - that would be an issue) is a non-issue for the vast majority of users of such programs.
      - jcelerier 6y ago
        > you can fit 100 20MB apps into 2GB. But if a browser like chrome already uses 1.5 gigs there will be a big difference between the app that uses 500 (your average electron app) and the app that uses 50 (your average Qt, GTK, ex, fltk... app). One will swap and make the whole system slow, the other not.
ric2b 6y ago
> If you don't use it, its value is almost zero But the value is also zero if you're using extra for no benefit. Actually it's negative, because it prevents other programs from using it. You should try to use all your RAM, yes, _but in ways that are actually useful_. The OS can always use leftover RAM for caching frequently used files if you don't have a better use for it.
badsectoracula 6y ago
> RAM is cheap and plentiful. If you don't use it, its value is almost zero (the "almost" comes from OS-level caching of files and CPU-level cache misses of code). I have fond memories of my DOS days and the simplicity inherent in a single tasking environment, however nowadays operating systems allow for more than a single application to run at the same time and each application should play nice with the system resources, so even if RAM is cheap and plentiful it doesn't automatically mean that every application should feel entitled to it. (and also even during the DOS days we had TSRs which had to be RAM conscious too)
- Klonoar 6y ago
  >and each application should play nice with the system resources, so even if RAM is cheap and plentiful it doesn't automatically mean that every application should feel entitled to it. Yes, you shouldn't be a bad neighbor, but the OS will generally move things around to accommodate you as necessary. RAM is an afterthought for most of these applications for a reason. This attitude is like buying a sports car and never redlining it.
  - badsectoracula 6y ago
    > Yes, you shouldn't be a bad neighbor, but the OS will generally move things around to accommodate you as necessary. I'm not sure what you mean with that. The OS will not "move things around" to the point where the resource abuse wont be noticeable, all it can do is swap stuff to the disk, perhaps compress some RAM and maybe unload any cold code (though code doesn't that that much RAM) and all that take time, slowing down the system. > RAM is an afterthought for most of these applications for a reason. Yes and that reason is disinterest from the application developers for RAM usage. > This attitude is like buying a sports car and never redlining it. Sports cars have nothing to do with this, i do not see the relevance.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    At least on Linux swap is a great tool for shuffling things you probably statistically wont use again out while retaining the ability to transparently recall them if it turns out your system guessed wrong. If you find yourself in a situation where your OS is actually shuffling things around for your system to function you will find your performance and desktop experience has gone to absolute dog shit. It's entirely likely that the user will actually hard reboot the machine because they conclude it has frozen. The absolutely only way to have a nice desktop experience in Linux is to ensure you have enough ram for all the things you intend to run at once which means have at least 8GB-16GB of RAM and don't run too many app once from people who think unused RAM is wasted RAM.
reaperducer 6y ago
HN: "RAM is cheap and plentiful." Also HN: "The MacBook Pro is worthless if I can't get it with at least 64GB of RAM."
- square_usual 6y ago
  Those don't seem contradictory to me. RAM is cheap and plentiful, and getting 64GB of RAM is easy, but Apple just doesn't want to sell that config right now. You can still get a 64GB config on another system.
  - jbverschoor 6y ago
    Everyday users don’t get Ram upgrades. Many programmers are elitist snobs without any consideration for the end user
- AZ-X 6y ago
  Go back to Year 2000, Jobs may laugh and agree with disagree. Now Year 2021, HN: “Noodle JS is centenary and memories are around it”

by fouric 6y ago

hypertele-Xii 6y ago

> If you don't use it, its value is almost zero Yet if you use all of it, its value is also zero - to every other program on the same computer. Don't be a dick; Use what you need, not all you can.

texasbigdata 6y ago
Conversely, to the end user, if they could pick a bit more resources usage (knowing they can close your app, or heaven forbid uninstall it) versus an extra feature what should the dev team prioritise?
fouric 6y ago
This is ridiculous. 20 MB is so far from "all of it" on any modern computer that it makes me question if you're using something from the 90's. How are you even on Hacker News? The reduction of the complex trade-off between memory use, CPU, disk, development environment, ease of deployment, and the dozen other variables that go into a choice like picking what toolkit to use to "don't be a dick" is so absurdly simplistic. It's a trade-off - not a single-axis "good or bad" decision. Moreover, 20 MB of memory usage is going to be an acceptable trade-off for the majority of HN users, who skew webdev, not embedded.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > This is ridiculous. 20 MB is so far from "all of it" on any modern computer that it makes me question if you're using something from the 90's. If I look at today's top seller computers in Amazon for my country (France, 6th economic power in the world), the top two models both come with 4G of RAM (a chromebook, and a win10). The windows one will already use ~2gigs just for the OS. That leaves 2 gigs of RAM for your apps. And that's for computers being sold today - they will still be in use in five years.
  - fouric 6y ago
    Meanwhile, you can fit 100 20MB apps into 2GB. I've never seen a normal desktop user use more than 10 graphical applications at once. I've never used more than 20 at once myself. It's pretty clear that 2O MB of RAM as baseline memory consumption for a graphical application (we're not talking about a runtime that might be used for a bunch of background processes - that would be an issue) is a non-issue for the vast majority of users of such programs.
    - jcelerier 6y ago
      > you can fit 100 20MB apps into 2GB. But if a browser like chrome already uses 1.5 gigs there will be a big difference between the app that uses 500 (your average electron app) and the app that uses 50 (your average Qt, GTK, ex, fltk... app). One will swap and make the whole system slow, the other not.

ric2b 6y ago

> If you don't use it, its value is almost zero But the value is also zero if you're using extra for no benefit. Actually it's negative, because it prevents other programs from using it. You should try to use all your RAM, yes, _but in ways that are actually useful_. The OS can always use leftover RAM for caching frequently used files if you don't have a better use for it.

badsectoracula 6y ago

> RAM is cheap and plentiful. If you don't use it, its value is almost zero (the "almost" comes from OS-level caching of files and CPU-level cache misses of code). I have fond memories of my DOS days and the simplicity inherent in a single tasking environment, however nowadays operating systems allow for more than a single application to run at the same time and each application should play nice with the system resources, so even if RAM is cheap and plentiful it doesn't automatically mean that every application should feel entitled to it. (and also even during the DOS days we had TSRs which had to be RAM conscious too)

Klonoar 6y ago
>and each application should play nice with the system resources, so even if RAM is cheap and plentiful it doesn't automatically mean that every application should feel entitled to it. Yes, you shouldn't be a bad neighbor, but the OS will generally move things around to accommodate you as necessary. RAM is an afterthought for most of these applications for a reason. This attitude is like buying a sports car and never redlining it.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  > Yes, you shouldn't be a bad neighbor, but the OS will generally move things around to accommodate you as necessary. I'm not sure what you mean with that. The OS will not "move things around" to the point where the resource abuse wont be noticeable, all it can do is swap stuff to the disk, perhaps compress some RAM and maybe unload any cold code (though code doesn't that that much RAM) and all that take time, slowing down the system. > RAM is an afterthought for most of these applications for a reason. Yes and that reason is disinterest from the application developers for RAM usage. > This attitude is like buying a sports car and never redlining it. Sports cars have nothing to do with this, i do not see the relevance.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  At least on Linux swap is a great tool for shuffling things you probably statistically wont use again out while retaining the ability to transparently recall them if it turns out your system guessed wrong. If you find yourself in a situation where your OS is actually shuffling things around for your system to function you will find your performance and desktop experience has gone to absolute dog shit. It's entirely likely that the user will actually hard reboot the machine because they conclude it has frozen. The absolutely only way to have a nice desktop experience in Linux is to ensure you have enough ram for all the things you intend to run at once which means have at least 8GB-16GB of RAM and don't run too many app once from people who think unused RAM is wasted RAM.

reaperducer 6y ago

HN: "RAM is cheap and plentiful." Also HN: "The MacBook Pro is worthless if I can't get it with at least 64GB of RAM."

square_usual 6y ago
Those don't seem contradictory to me. RAM is cheap and plentiful, and getting 64GB of RAM is easy, but Apple just doesn't want to sell that config right now. You can still get a 64GB config on another system.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  Everyday users don’t get Ram upgrades. Many programmers are elitist snobs without any consideration for the end user
AZ-X 6y ago
Go back to Year 2000, Jobs may laugh and agree with disagree. Now Year 2021, HN: “Noodle JS is centenary and memories are around it”