• Veedem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 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.

      • xan1242@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        8 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 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: https://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).