3 ms·
Your assertion is entirely false. Just because something keeps getting larger/faster/smaller doesn't mean it will eventually be arbitrarily large/fast/small. e.
by dbaupp 14y ago
Your assertion is entirely false. Just because something keeps getting larger/faster/smaller doesn't mean it will eventually be arbitrarily large/fast/small. e.g. the sequence 1, 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8,... keeps getting bigger and bigger, but it never goes past 2.
(Futhermore, in my personal experience, Firefox has been using less and less memory.)
- tedunangst 14y agoYour sequence is growing, albeit at a decreasing rate, so I'm not sure it's a good fit for memory usage. Unless you meant to say the rate at which Firefox is bloating is slowing. I could believe that. But Firefox is claiming memory usage is following a sequence more like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... Which should approach zero. If you meant your sequence to represent performance, maybe that's what's happening, but then I think they should stop saying "now 1/1024 faster than before" as if it's a reason to upgrade.
- dbaupp 14y agoThat sequence was merely an example of something that is monotonic and bounded, it wasn't chosen to be a model for memory usage or performance or anything like that. Also, I don't see Mozilla claiming memory usage follows a curve like 1/x. In fact, I don't seem them claiming anything about long term memory usage other than "it's decreasing", which is true, and can be true without implying that the memory usage will eventually be 0. (Btw, I don't think Mozilla have ever said something as frivolous as "1/1024 faster".)
- tedunangst 14y agoWhat I meant by 1/1024 is either the changes are noticeable or not. If they aren't, don't talk about them.