3 ms·
This has proven true for a while now. My favorite example is Slack. Slack is solid software, but why do we need upwards of 300MB of memory usage to send text an
by jjice 3y ago
This has proven true for a while now. My favorite example is Slack. Slack is solid software, but why do we need upwards of 300MB of memory usage to send text and a couple images.
I know why, but it does seem like an unreasonable usage.
Here's the thing: I'd be okay with my "primary" software to be resource intensive. In my case, that's my IDE and the surrounding tools supporting it. I don't want my supporting software (Slack, Spotify, etc) to be taking a ton of resource. But everyone thinks their software is worth the memory usage. That ends up leaving us with Spotify actively taking 300ish MB of RAM to play music I could play off of VLC instead.
Who this really hurts are the users that's don't want to spend a lot on their machines. A lot of us devs have powerful and nice machines because it's a clear value win for us to do so, but then tons of users suffer because you're not even realizing you're writing insanely suboptimal code.
The amount of times I've seen things that abuse network traffic to is insane. Everytime I see some SQL in a loop that should be a single query, a piece of me dies.
This is probably just a natural thing we're experiencing with software development though, and I don't expect it to go away. The best we can do is to write better software and review our peer's code as well.
- stock_toaster 3y agoI think a lot of it is that Electron, as a technology, trades off cheaper developer expense (fewer devs needed to target more platforms) for much worse end user performance (slower, more ram).
- dijit 3y agoWell, certainly. Externalising the cost on users means the company doesn't have to pay it. Developers are expensive after all, and there's no material loss for slack (except negative sentiment like this) - ultimately: you still use (and pay) for the software, so why should they care?