7 ms·

Ask HN: Why is the hunger for RAM never satisfied?

• DiscourseFan 4y ago
  I remember one time when I was 14 I loaded my entire Civilization 5 install, including saves, into my RAM without a backup, and then I shut off my computer, deleting said install along with all my saves.
• sysmuird 4y ago
  [dead]
• ephbit 4y ago
  Does anybody else use the "Minimize memory usage" function in "about:memory" in Firefox? I'm on a 4 GB system, so RAM fills up quickly. Since I'm also still using a HDD, it's pretty important for me to prevent RAM from filling, since swapping makes the whole desktop environment lag. When I see the RAM indicator column get close to 75 % I'm warned and do things like close applications I currently don't need or press the above mentioned button, since Firefox is open pretty much the whole time.
• andrewfromx 4y ago
  there's no incentive for a browser to stop consuming if the OS lets it. If you can open infinite tabs, and each tab takes N amount of RAM, and the OS says here you go... same with photoshop and final cut, you can keep opening more docs and more movie clips. Imaging getting an OS message "sorry, even though your computer has 12 more GB of ram available, this program has used its max. Allow more?" people would ask for this message to be disabled and the allow more Yes option be the default.
• not_your_vase 4y ago
  It's not the hardware that is struggling, but the software is getting more and more bloated. And by bloat I don't necessarily mean unwanted features, but more like extraneous abstractions. There is no free lunch, everything has a price. If you want to have fast, very efficient software, you will have to optimize it for the hardware, which will cost development time. It also may or may not be maintainable. Or you can use an all-in-1 solutions, that will handle everything in all (most) situations. It will be relatively fast to develop with, but the result will be far from efficient. It will be "good enough" for the current hardware. As long as hardware is cheaper than developer time, this trend will not stop most probably. (On a personal note, this is my favorite thing about embedded software: developers are forced to use hardware efficiently, which can result in surprisingly fast code - at least surprising when compared to regular bloatware)
  • adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    > embedded software: developers are forced to use hardware efficiently Getting less true in low-volume embedded, where you can now throw a few ARM cores (or now RISC-V) and GBs of RAM at it for just a few dollars extra. The payroll and time-to-market costs of paying embedded developers to lovingly massage and squeeze the application into the smallest device possible to save on the BOM don't start to pay off until you're shipping a lot of units.
• h2odragon 4y ago
  When was the last time you even considered RAM use, when writing your own programs? Just copy that list and modify the copy; never worry about "is the original needed any longer?" And so on. Such economies suck time to find and implement and aren't useful until they're actually necessary, so nobody does them. "nobody does that" times 20 years of RAM getting ever bigger, ever cheaper; and you get where we are today. Once upon a time, emacs was considered a hog: "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping". We had to invent whole new layers of indirection and waste to come up with the current VScode type efforts. "the hunger of apps for RAM" will never be satisfied, just like there will never be no books for the printing presses to print: We'll find some use for keeping the machines thrashing no matter how silly.
  • hunter2_ 4y ago
    Unless efficiency regulations take hold for protection against excess emissions, chip shortages, etc. Seems unlikely, but at some point it might make sense. Of course if the resources (electricity, silicon, etc.) required by developers to implement such efficient code exceeds the estimated savings, then doing it would actually be worse. But think about all the build scripts constantly being invoked, for example. The energy used to develop them must be extremely overshadowed by the energy to execute them.
    • prmph 4y ago
      Yes, I posted this as part of a comment some time ago: > Software used by a certain minimum number of users, and software used in certain fields (like medicine, transport, and finance) need to be subjected by regulatory agencies to certain objective (hence automated?) tests to ensure they meet some minimum reliability, usability, security, and performance requirements. In this regime, small-time SaaS software, or hobby projects, would not need any regulation, but flagship software products of Facebook, Google, SAP, Oracle, Tesla, etc would need it.
  • fear_and_coffee 4y ago
    I program on old hardware in order to keep me in check.
  • 4y ago
• hnthrowaway0315 4y ago
  32GB is pretty good for my business case so I don't see the need for more RAMs in the next say 5 years.
• electric_mayhem 4y ago
  As a wise man once said: “Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.” There’s a comparable race between hardware engineers striving to build faster and more capacious systems and programers blithely consuming all the cpu and memory they can find. So far, the programmers are winning that one.
• ufmace 4y ago
  Incidentally, it seems that Chrome somewhat recently released an update that unloads tabs from memory if you haven't interacted with them in a while. In my personal experience, this seems to have led to a pretty remarkable drop in RAM consumed by it on my high-memory systems. Yet it doesn't seem to be terribly popular so far. I guess our desires to have plenty of RAM available are secondary to our desires to have 100 tabs open at once, a quarter of which have a ton of sophisticated JS behavior, and never lose application state in any of them. Oh well. You could always look at this the other way - I did pay for that 32GB of RAM, why shouldn't it be actively used for things I find at least sort of useful instead of staying forever unused in support of some abstract notion of how being paltry with RAM use is good, or for some possible other task I want to do that does need lots of RAM.
  • darklycan51 4y ago
    Yeah this was first used in Microsoft Edge, it's pretty good
    • wiredfool 4y ago
      There was an extension (The Great Suspender) that did that well for years, till it was sold and they started bundling stuff.
• csrf-token 4y ago
  I don't think "struggling" is the right perspective here. If you have more RAM available, the browser is built to prefer using it in lieu of re-fetching data or writing to disk. Using RAM is orders of magnitude faster and results in a snappier app across tabs, when you browse history, etc. It's not hungry because the browser is written poorly. There's no magic data structure that can keep us from caching HTTP responses in order to make the browser snappy so the browser uses more when you have more. Certainly other apps could do better. But I've made peace with the fact that browsers and IDEs, for instance, should use as much as I have available because the whole point is for them to be fast and to be fast they need to cache as much data as possible.
• dev1ycan 4y ago
  Doesn't help that Firefox for several years already has had a really annoying leak that happens with random websites (I open FF taskmanager), it starts piling up after weeks of not turning off your PC (I noticed because between Thesis/Work/Warcraft 3 modding and other stuff I just didn't have time to restart all my work every morning) so I'd leave my PC on. Firefox got to a point where it was consuming 24 GIGS OF RAM, yes, 24, on my 32GB of RAM machine, and you'd say oh but that's still okay, your PC should function properly, nope, once it starts leaking FF starts hogging your PC, even at like 8GBs of RAM it's already hogging the PC. I don't really know what's going on but FF mods on reddit and such are on denial and gaslight you about it, it's been this way on several operating systems (windows 10 and now 11) and with or without addons (not like I use any special addon, really, just basically Ublock, although now I've started using clickbait remover, sponsorblock and bypass paywall). For the same amount of tabs open Edge and Brave for example use like 3gbs or less of RAM, even after months.
  • ephbit 4y ago
    Have you tried using the "Minimize memory usage" function in "about:memory" in such cases?
  • prmph 4y ago
    This has been my experience with FF as well. Which is a pity because I really like to use FF instead of Chrome or anything else. And here I thought all major browsers have implemented the feature where unused tabs are unloaded from memory after some time.
• jmclnx 4y ago
  I agree with "not_your_vase" says, but also people want fancy, look at GNOME, KDE, Windows and MACs. I use fvwm and it is far from fancy, but it gets the job done and is quite efficient. Proprietary software Companies discovered early on eye-candy sells, and many people in the Linux Land is following what Apple and Windows developers do because most people want a similar fancy look. In many cases PCs and Laptops are more of an entertainment device as opposed to a data processing device, that means Browsers are getting lots functionality for that use-case, and that is not cheap. I had hoped the move of the masses to Cell Phones and Tablets would stop this trend, but seems it only to have accelerated it. Now a "rant" On the Linux side, Wayland is a big concern for me because I may be forced into using software that has a lot of functionality I do not need, stealing RAM from processing/analyzing large sets of data that could use gigs of RAM. Right now my distro of choice still easily allows me to avoid that bloat, but the Wayland move may force it to follow to use something Red Hat created that to me is way to complex and is overkill. Luckily OpenBSD and NetBSD (on a BSD now) is trying to avoid that mess, but Wayland may force changes I believe neither of these systems wants. Adding the bloat these systems have been able to avoid. Already dbus is needed for Firefox/chrome... What else will they be forced to port.
  • circuit10 4y ago
    Even for productivity having a UI that “feels” nice is important for usability
  • zzo38computer 4y ago
    I dislike the fancy decorations in GNOME and KDE, and I do not use any desktop environment on my computer. However, many programs still use GTK and expect such desktop environments, and they have other problems; I prefer Xaw, that you can also use X resource manager files, etc. You could also use command-line programs. Some programs (especially older programs, but also some newer ones that I have written) allow to use pipes with external commands from within the program (for example, Heirloom-mailx allows to write attachments to pipes; I find this very useful, because when someone sends a picture to me, I can use that to view the picture). Web browsers especially have become full of problems. It lacks better controls that the end user can customize and link with other programs etc, and is full of bloated features that don't help and often make it worse anyways. Unfortunately, WWW is a mess, I have some ideas for improvement which are unfortunately still need to be a mess a bit but still can be somewhat better; some of the specifications could be "turned around" to be implemented more usefully for the user instead of the author, e.g. a request/response overriding configuration can substitute for many of the other settings, etc. ARIA might also be helpful in some cases. I also don't like Wayland, and I don't like Unicode either (what someone mentioned is that Unicode makes text processing very slow; apparently that is even worse than I thought). There are parts of the Freedesktop specification which are problematic, in my opinion, too (as well as some parts which are unnecessary but can be avoided). And then there are sandboxing systems to try to improve security, but they have problems too, such as requiring file names to be Unicode (you can't use EUC-TRON), and having rather limited functionality with allowing end users to connect them with other programs, e.g. it does not seem to have a way to ask the user for a command which will be executed by popen. And then, you might want permissions to differ by command-line switches, etc, and that is also difficult. (I do have idea how to make a better one, though.) Those who are trying to avoid this bloat should make packages which are designed to reduce it by making programs (modifying existing ones if necessary, and avoiding certain dependencies, including the most common web browser engines) without D-bus, Wayland, systemd, etc. An operating system with capability-based security (including proxy capabilities too) also would be a good idea, I think. (I have some ideas relating to operating system design; maybe some other people will be able to help with this too)
• nottorp 4y ago
  It will never stop. Every time the hardware gets stronger, someone will turn the extra resources into a way to spend less on software development and consume them all.
• qbasic_forever 4y ago
  I'm perfectly fine with 8GB and can even make 4GB systems work fine. The key is to use an ad blocker as browser ads have just completely destroyed browsing 99% of the web. It is truly unbelievable the performance difference with ads on vs. off. The other big thing is I never have more than 4-5 tabs open--anything beyond that just bookmark the sites and come back later, having hundreds of tabs open is just silly and a true anti pattern for research and thinking.
• dataangel 4y ago
  1) in general most programmers only optimize once they perceive slowness, which means they only optimize when the hardware can't keep up with the application, which means as hardware gets more capable, things are less optimized 2) writing streaming code is harder
  • pixl97 4y ago
    Also typically programmers are highly paid, which also corresponds with them getting powerful hardware with large amounts of ram, SSD, and processor. So their machines don't see this slowness while your netbook is catching on fire.
    • lowq 4y ago
      Holy cow. I never considered this! I guess it would also explain why the games I would write in 2011 on a netbook ran so smoothly on every other computer I tested them on, despite using the legacy OpenGL 1.1 API, etc. etc.
• kps 4y ago
  For software development, the cost of RAM is an externality. Saving RAM takes expensive effort, and sometimes even conflicts with things people want, so there is almost never enough incentive to do it.
  • sowbug 4y ago
    See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.
• tester756 4y ago
  >With all the advances in tech, why are our hardware still struggling to keep up with demands of the apps we use? Weird, 8/16 GB of RAM were common configurations for at least last 10? 15? years. RAM advances very, very slowly in compare to e.g disks, gpus and cpus. There were Optane memories which had way higher amounts of RAM, but they're cancelled as far as I've heard. Personally the only time I'm constrained by memory is when running Windows VM in the background. But if I didn't have 20 apps running in the background (web browsers/games/IDEs/chats/etc) then it wouldn't be a problem, I think. Our computers are doing more and more tasks, we want to have answers faster and without using internet bandwidth, so there's a lot of caches and having stuff in the memory
• scottLobster 4y ago
  In a perfect world the entire computer, storage included, would run in RAM for performance reasons. There's actually been some storage products over the years that were basically RAM chips with battery backups for when the machine turned off, but they never took off due to implementation issues/expense, and then SSDs got big and fast enough for 99% of use-cases. Plus we're just victims of our own technological success. RAM is cheap. Similar to all the old classic cars from the 60s, gas was cheap, engine tech advanced and environmental regulations nonexistent, so you got giant 7L V8 engines running at like 10 mpg even with premium, leaded gasoline. It wasn't until pollution regulation, gas taxes to pay for infrastructure, and now climate change (in some peoples' minds) that efficiency became a priority.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• fuu_dev 4y ago
  The question should be "why". The reason is that we find ways to utialize it. Once Moores law or the essence of it comes to an halt, more effort will be put into making things more efficient. Maybe that's even a bit too pesimistic. Cloud computing already gives companies incentive to focus on efficiency for cost saving and there is a growing trend to write simpler more performant software to replace existing tools, however not specifically in the general purpose computing space.
• yread 4y ago
  I don't think it's that bad. It used to go much faster in the 90s. Like a 5 year old high end computer being unusable. I have a 2010 laptop 6GB RAM in a closet that I still sometimes power on and it's fine.
• slotrans 4y ago
  Because developers are lazy, and our employers don't care. There are programs out there that are RAM-efficient. Every single one was written by someone that DOES care and ISN'T lazy.
  • zirgs 4y ago
    Programmer's time is expensive and RAM is cheap. Unless there are problems with memory leaks that cause the app to crash - programmer's time is better spent elsewhere.
    • slotrans 4y ago
      This isn't true when your software runs on thousands or millions of users' machines. It's common for consumer software to use 10, 100, or even 1000 times as much memory as is needed. If that forces every user to buy $200 of extra RAM, it is definitely more costly than developer time. Besides, what else is developer time getting spent on? Take Slack for example. For the past 8 years or so, Slack -- who employs thousands of engineers, mind you -- has spent developer time on two things: 1) breaking the UI for no reason, and 2) reducing memory usage. Only one of those things has benefited me as a user!
    • simonblack 4y ago
      Programmer's time is expensive and RAM is cheap. Back when RAM was $25 per KILObyte*, that saying was reversed. "Programmer's time is cheap and RAM is horribly expensive." Especially when there were hard limits to the RAM as in 8-bit computing where the hard limit was 64 kilobytes of contiguous RAM. Programmers used to sweat over saving bits, even, hence the packed-data systems where you might fit (say) 3-bytes of data into two bytes by squeezing out redundant bits. ========= * That doesn't sound particularly expensive till you compare it with today's costs. $25 per KiLObyte = $25,000 per MEGAbyte = $25 MILLION BUCKS per GIGAbyte. Seeing my current computer that I'm writing this on has 32 gigabytes of RAM, that amount of RAM would have cost me Eight Hundred Million (non-inflation-adjusted) Bucks back in 1980. (And I haven't bothered to adjust with the 'kilo' = 1024 factor out of pure laziness)
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• AdrianB1 4y ago
  EDIT: Summary: it is a tragedy of the commons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons). The value added of using less RAM for a single application that you develop is close to zero, so people don't do it; if all other apps on that computer use hundreds of MB to several of RAM, your reduction from 100 MB to 5 MB is insignificant for the overall system. When everyone thinks the same, you just buy another 16 GB of RAM and everyone's messy app will fit. Developers know RAM is cheap, but don't calculate the result of cheap multiplied by millions (not cheap at all). The only 2 times developers think about RAM consumption is when they design an application and set a target and then when they go to testing and exceed the target, so they need to reduce it enough to pass. If the design review allows them to set a relatively high target, they don't have to care at all.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• kirykl 4y ago
  Tragedy of the commons
• seedless-sensat 4y ago
  Caches. It is generally a good idea for a data intensive application to use as much RAM as is available for it. Better that than the RAM sitting unused
• earthbee 4y ago
  Software expands to use whatever system resources are available. If overnight we all got ten times the RAM, within a few years all new software would require ten times the RAM.
• jacobgorm 4y ago
  "With all the advances in tech..." Hmmm. When I joined virtualization startup Bromium shortly after it was founded in 2011 (product now sold by HP as HP Sure Click), we were planning to put 100s of VMs on a single laptop, for security purposes, and were counting on and hoping() for the amount of RAM available to us on customer devices exponentially increasing over time, as had been the norm until them. In 2011, a typical low-end laptop came with 4GiB of RAM, and a high-end one with 8GiB. I was a the company for five years, and those specs stayed exactly the same. Now in 2023, almost 12 years later, the minimum spec for a laptop has grown to 8GiBs of RAM, whereas Moore's law (transistors per unit space doubling every 18 months) would have predicted somewhere around 256GiB of RAM (4 (2*(12/2)) = 256GiB). So where is the feast we were promised? *) We actually made that happen, using lots of cool software tricks, but that is a story for another day.
  • jacobgorm 4y ago
    (Correction: Calculation made with doubling every 24 months, though my comment said 18 months, with 18 month doubling that would have been 1TiB).
• lopkeny12ko 4y ago
  This is just Linux working as intended. There is no need to spread FUD. The more memory you put in the system, the more physical pages will be allocated by the kernel to make more efficient use of available capacity. When was the last time you consciously thought about how frequently your OS is executing page faults?
• rco8786 4y ago
  Same reason animals grow to fit the size of their environment. Same reason nobody has empty storage rooms in their homes, no matter the size of the house. Things expand to fill up their surroundings. It’s like a law of nature.
  • nix23 4y ago
    [dead]
• Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
  If you're sad about all of your RAM being eaten, you'll be despondent if you think about about your poor L1 and L2 caches--they're all being 100% used all of the time! But seriously, RAM should be used for caching purposes and a lot of the RAM usage you see in various monitoring tools is just that. Likewise, with SSDs being so fast these days, the strategy of just bringing everything you need "into RAM" and then letting the paging system handle the loading/unloading as you actually need it is a reasonable strategy. To your original point, honestly, it kind of seems like the "hunger for RAM" kind of has been satisfied! Mainstream computers have been coming with 8/16 GB of RAM for a decade now and it seems like there isn't much upwards pressure on that. More RAM can be useful for special use cases like intensive graphics/media tasks, running VMs, etc. but doesn't really make a difference day-to-day, where the RAM is just acting as a layer of caching, and no normal applications have a big enough working set to cause an issue.
  • Narishma 4y ago
    > If you're sad about all of your RAM being eaten, you'll be despondent if you think about about your poor L1 and L2 caches--they're all being 100% used all of the time! You mean wasted all the time. With all the over-abstraction and layers of indirection that are rampant in modern software, I doubt your CPU caches are used anywhere near as efficiently as they could be.
    • Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
      You'll get no argument from me that most software is bloated and slow compared to what is possible. (I spent a lot of my career working on making code run fast!) But it feels wrong to say that the caches are wasted. The code we write do not explicitly control the L1/L2 caches. So whether the code we are running is super-optimized or super-bloated, the caches are responding to what's actually being accessed to make that code run as efficiently as it can.
      • karmakaze 4y ago
        But we do influence how effectively L1/L2 caches are used. Each time we have a choice to split some fields into two objects or not, they can be allocated/cached together or separately. This is one of the huge outcomes of Java's project Valhalla to have Value objects that live 'in-place' rather than separately, the way embedded structs do in Go.
• hoofhearted 4y ago
  I have a windows machine for sim racing that has an I9 10 core processor with 64gb of ram across all 4 slots. I’ve never seen the ram usage exceed 25%, even in the most demanding uses such as VR sim racing, or developing full stack code with a bunch of IDE’s and vms running. I believe 32gb will be the next standard, as is 16GB is today. I don’t believe the next hop to 64GB will happen anytime soon in the next 10 years. I believe 32gb will be enough resources to hold over the next computing wave.
• furyofantares 4y ago
  I haven't noticed the issue with browsers, probably 'cause I'm one of these one-tab-at-a-time weirdos, but I'm going to want more RAM at the very least until I have as much RAM as storage (so, always) and files are only ever read once per power-on. Of course files might be compressed on disk and optimally not compressed in memory, and of course I might want to connect to internet services and download data to store in memory that never goes to disk. So I'll still want more RAM some point past the hypothetical world where I have as many terabytes of RAM as I do storage. For the last 10 years or more, whenever someone is building a computer and asks for my advice, I look their build over and say "I would double the RAM." If they follow the advice and ask for any more advice on the build, I look it over and say "I would double the RAM." It's because it is so much faster than disk.
• orf 4y ago
  Death by a thousand cuts. Let’s take JSON parsing as an example. In the simple case a value like “foo” requires no copying during parsing - it can be parsed with zero copies. But escaped values like “foo\”bar\”” cause issues. The actual string you want is foo”bar” without the escape slashes. Ok, so for this you need to copy the unescaped string into a scratch buffer somewhere. How big is this buffer? Is the JSON parsing API you’re using flexible enough to let you re-use buffers between calls to avoid extra allocations? Cool. Now how do you express “this parsed struct field may reference the input bytes or it may reference some scratch space” in a way that’s memory safe? Does your chosen language even support this? What if your internal string representation is platform specific? Copying uses potentially double the memory but whatever, we are hampered by calling conventions and legacy code and other libraries and opaque unknown callers in different languages and different operating systems and different CPUs. And on top of this mountain of shit you stand and yell “I just want to parse some JSON!”. Screw it. Just always re-allocate and make copies Now imagine this times by a thousand at every layer of the stack and in every process and every library.
  • srcreigh 4y ago
    It’d be cool to parse the JSON using the same memory holding the string. Intern the object keys and it should fit
    • orf 4y ago
      You can do this quite nicely with serde in Rust. It’s elegant. There’s still allocations when needing to unescape values and expand the scratch space, but otherwise it’s all zero copy. You can parse at over a gigabyte a second from stdin without any real tuning.
  • zzo38computer 4y ago
    > Now imagine this times by a thousand at every layer of the stack and in every process and every library. I think that such things are often overused, such as due to using too many dependencies, using badly designed file formats and character encodings, duplication of working, etc.
• jmmv 4y ago
  Two reasons: One is because of software bloat. Apps and frameworks keep getting larger, so they need more memory. But that's only a small portion of the explanation, and when talking about 16GB+ of RAM, probably almost irrelevant. The other is because RAM is there to be used, particularly for caching. The problem here, however, is that every app is its own island in how it does caching, so multiple apps consuming RAM for caching will end up doing the wrong thing. See https://jmmv.dev/2021/08/using-all-memory-as-a-cache.html https://jmmv.dev/2021/08/using-all-memory-as-a-cache.html for a detailed description of this issue.
• JeremyBanks 4y ago
  [dead]
• luxuryballs 4y ago
  It’s a bit like having storage containers, if you have them you’re going to fill them up, otherwise why have them? I think “free RAM” as a metric is sort of a misconception. Having lots of RAM will often given you better performance, but don’t worry about not filling up your newly expanded gas tank all the way when you stop for gas.
  • sowbug 4y ago
    It's fine if you use all your RAM. It's not fine when each app assumes it can use all your RAM.
• brudgers 4y ago
  start up a few browsers and other programs I think it’s more user behavior than application implementation. Ymmv. Good luck.
• Falkon1313 4y ago
  At 32GB, I very rarely ever get near full usage. Right now, with 20 windows open and a bunch of tabs in some of them, I'm at 36% usage. Even gaming, I don't get near full usage. However - that's still a whole hell of a lot of RAM! I remember the 640KB days. The interesting part is, there was a big step up from DOS and text mode to Windows and everything being GUI, and that made some major changes in software and how people use computers. But -- there haven't really been many changes since then. Open a word processor and type a letter or something now. Same letter you could've typed in 1995 or 1998. It'll take 100x the RAM (or more), for the exact same result. Same with spreadsheets. And the vast majority of other stuff any normal person does on a computer. A sidenote is that there are a few things like streaming video, which weren't really doable back then. But most everything else hasn't really changed much to the user. Click to make this text bold, or align right - that's the same as it was in 1995. What has changed is that now all software must have at least 75 layers of indirection and more dependencies than you could shake a tree at. Mostly just to do the exact same things that equivalent software did a whole quarter century ago. Without all that nonsense. It's all the frameworks, patterns, and architecture astronauts. Us developers are continually reinforced with this idea that making things as abstract, generic, and be-all-things-to-all-people is the proper way to develop. And reusing code (no matter how loosely it matches what you need to do) and gluing it together is the way to build things. Instead of just writing code that does exactly what you need and nothing more. Nowhere is this bloat more obvious than the web. A typical web page today takes around 1000x as many resources as an equivalent page that communicated the exact same information would've 10 years ago. It's still mostly just text, some images, and forms. Same as it was then. But nowadays it's just not done properly unless you add at least two frameworks with several megabytes of javascript dependencies. And also a lot of tracking scripts and popups and various other overrides of the default behavior. The real problem though, is not the RAM usage, or bandwidth. We've got the hardware for that now. The real problem is how hard it is to understand and debug all that extra cruft. We're just wrapping layers upon layers upon layers, none of which are comprehensible or even correct (each layer patching over the previous or adjusting the generic results to fit the specific needs), instead of just doing the specific thing right to start with. Our hardware is struggling because, as a whole, us developers are pursuing the stupidest route possible. The route that is (supposedly) the most efficient for development, despite being the least efficient in actual use. However, that tower of abstractions and layers costs us a lot. Not just in RAM usage, bandwidth, and disk space. I'd guess we're to the point that the average developer spends significantly less than 1/3rd of their time actually developing and at least 2/3rds of their time dealing with all the cruft. So it's not even efficient on that front. I don't know what it will take for everyone to understand just how bad the current trajectory is. Or what percentage of developers would actually have any clue how to build things efficiently. We're at least two generations into this approach.
• goethes_kind 4y ago
  I don't understand people who keep 120 tabs open at a time. What's the point? Your mind cannot keep track of that anyway, so just use bookmarks.
  • pseudalopex 4y ago
    https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3411764.3445585#sec-14 https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3411764.3445585#sec-...
• TrianguloY 4y ago
  "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" There, that's the answer. Ok, before getting downvotes, let me explain. The current programming "best practices" is to write programs with manageable and easy to understand code, not necessarily using as less memory as possible. It is not a bad way per se, you need to spend resources where needed, and focus on optimization when it is really the problem. But with today RAM, specially in development environments, that's rarely an issue. If you have 50% of something unused, you try to use it (similar as space, no matter how much space you have, you will try to fill it just so it doesn't go to waste). The main issue, in my opinion, is that developers often forget that their program is not the only one on a user machine. Premature optimization is evil. No optimization at all is even 'eviler'.
• Kalanos 4y ago
  i can't believe that it's been a decade and mac still thinks it's acceptable to ship 16GB of RAM. it wasn't enough back then
  • Kwpolska 4y ago
    While there are cases where more than 16 GB is needed (if you’re working with a fancy tech stack involving memory hogs such as ES/Kafka/Zookeeper, for example), but outside of the HN bubble, 16 GB is certainly enough for most use-cases, and for lighter usage, you could get by with 8 GB.
• kir-gadjello 4y ago
  There is something to be said here about complexity expanding like a gas and parallels with certain amoebas who evolved genomes of enormous size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium
• hayst4ck 4y ago
  Almost all sufficiently complex software leaks memory. If there is a reference to a piece of memory, what is stored in that location will likely last forever. You could imagine someone doing things like creating a global variable with a queue in it and then putting log lines into that queue, but never taking items out. Because each log line has a reference to it from being in a data structure, and that data structure is referenced by the global scope, that memory will never be released. In big tech co infrastructure, almost all server software will have memory limits set on the process. The process will either try to allocate more memory and fail or it will be restarted by a process that is watching it. The other thing to consider is caching. When there is data on the hard drive that your computer needs, it will ask for it. If you ask for the first block of a file, your computer predicts you will probably ask for the rest of the file and optimistically starts loading it into memory before it is asked for. As long as your computer isn't busy with something higher priority, it will likely try to do things now that you might want to do later in order to appear faster. Web browsers have been known to also optimistically pre-fetch files, although I'm not sure what the current state of optimistic web requests is: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefetching_FAQ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe... Your browser might keep all types of extra data so it can serve your request quickly (form memory) rather than slowly (from some server half way across the world). Another thing to consider is quality of data. In the past it would have taken forever to download a simple picture, so they were highly compressed and blocky looking/pixelated. Now we can stream things in 4k. As ram increases, so too does the fidelity of our media. So to summarize, without doing any research at all, I expect the answers are: Memory leaks (programs bloating over time) Caching mechanisms (exchanging space used for speed) Higher quality media (exchanging space used for higher quality)