3 ms·
> ... just close stuff after awhile if the user doesn’t even look at it. Don’t delete it, file it away with rich metadata so it can be found if necessary. Is i
by yongjik 5y ago
> ... just close stuff after awhile if the user doesn’t even look at it. Don’t delete it, file it away with rich metadata so it can be found if necessary.
Is it just me, or does it sound like "Just do the thing I will want later, and no, I don't have time to tell you, you should just figure it out!"?
Imagine a program randomly closing stuff and saying "Oh you weren't using me for five hours so I thought you didn't need it any longer?"
- young_unixer 5y agoIt's more like a program saying "oh you weren't using me for five hours so I moved into the system tray."
- dredmorbius 5y agoMy read of that was "preserve a useful reserve of resources (most especially RAM) without my having to consciously manage it, but guard and respect my state at all costs." Virtually all current compute contexts violate at least one if not both these principles. Memory management is left to the user (effecting such powerful and expressive mechanisms as the Spinning Beach Ball of Doom), whilst at any moment the operating system and/or hardware may elect to preempt any user-designated tasks or workflows with its own (system updates, virus scans, etc., etc.) Android, I've recently learned, at least makes a stab at the first. It apparently utilises AI to allocate system resources. In my experience, it does so by shitting out any user state without recourse. This is not an especially encouraging direction of progress.