If it did a good job freeing it up when needed then sure, but it doesn’t.
Comment on FF Evangelists
Veedem@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’m all for people using Firefox instead of Chrome, but RAM being used up shouldn’t be a complaint unless something else needs that RAM. If it’s there, it should be considered usable.
fidodo@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 2 months ago
hot take lol
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“Should” is doing a lot of heavy lifting
lucas@fitt.au 2 months ago
brap@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yep, I didn’t buy that RAM to sit being unused.
xan1242@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
It’s specifically about the efficiency of the usage. If it’s not used effectively, then it really is a waste.
And we all know how efficient the Web is nowadays…
drem@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why could ram usage be a waste? I thought only the allocation is the performance heavy part, allocated ram does not cost extra performance.
xan1242@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
I’m referring to the philosophy behind the usage of said allocated ram.
If you allocate 5 cookie jars to store 1 cookie in each jar, then that’s not good.
If you store 2 cookies per jar, that’s better already, but still kind of crap.
If the websites keep putting rocks in those jars, then you’ll obviously run rampant with usage. (Read: tonsky.me/blog/js-bloat/ )
The goal is to store as many cookies in least amount of jars. You might crumble them down and reconstruct them later (compression and/or clever code) but that could take more brain (processing) power (of which we kinda have, especially on the desktop).
As you’ve said, it’s often a tradeoff between processing power and memory usage and depending on the application, you can configure things the way you need them (at least when you’re coding it).