[Y-bar]

Disagree fully. As an app I feel Discord is slow (on an Intel 9700K), clunky, and not really intuitive. Just the text input delay is noticeably slower than example Word or Sublime text.

I'm only member of 6 channels and have maybe only that many private messages open at a time, maybe it becomes more intuitive it there are more? But I don't understand how that would be.

One thing that is extra annoying is that the settings window can't be a separate window, so every time I have to adjust audio settings I get muted and lose the chat focus.

[kroltan]

Over-100-server lurker here. I majoritarily use servers, not DMs, and could see why people that use a lot of DMs would find the layout inconvenient.

I think the UI mostly makes sense, it has a hierarchy from left to right, so it is essentially a amped-up tree-view. You could argue for actually using a tree view (a la TeamSpeak), at least on desktop, and I wouldn't disagree, but it kind of makes sense given parity with the mobile app.

I don't see a need for minimal input delay for text, compared to a code editor, as when writing natural languages, they are mostly formed in sentences and therefore have a lot of "buffer" in my brain, I don't need a closed feedback loop to type. Suppose that someone that relies on that would be rightfully befuddled with any delay.

It uses 156 megabytes of memory even on this high-volume scenario, so I would say that while baseline performance is low, it doesn't get slower, which is good.

That being said, I can always find what I want in the UI, it is rather internally consistent. The voice features are excellent and it has less outages than Slack, in my experience!

[jcelerier]

> It uses 156 megabytes of memory even on this high-volume scenario, so I would say that while baseline performance is low, it doesn't get slower, which is good.

no ! it's not good ! this mindset is why everything sucks :( at no point one should have to accept that "baseline performance is low" for a software developed by a multi-hundred-million-dollar company that was almost bought by MS for a few billions

[kroltan]

I agree in principle, but I find the program extremely useful and the performance is totally acceptable for my use-case.

I want a chat program that is: - Tolerable to use - Does not require, incessant fiddling to get to work right (it's OK if it could allow so to get it to work even better) - Has some sort of rich-text formatting - Good, low-latency voice - Tolerable video or screen sharing - I can onboard people easily - Is group-oriented, not 1-to-1-oriented - Bonus points if it has reasonable moderation tools for guests or similar

If not for Discord, I would be using something like Slack (which somehow manages to have concurrency issues when typing and some jank occurs, uses 3x the memory, and does not scale nearly as well for multiple workspaces), TeamSpeak (which has very obscure UX, requires self-hosting, and doesn't provide a reasonable rich-text-chat), Matrix (I have to either pick an equally-bloated Electron client or one of the many incomplete native clients), or something else.

The fact is that raw performance itself is rather low in my list of priorities, as long as it a) doesn't stop my train of thought and b) does not overburden my system unnecessarily when idle.

As you can see all of that is very much subjective, I'm not saying you are wrong to demand utmost performance. I also try to strive for it in the programs I write, but when consuming I prioritize stability and features.

[smoldesu]

I'm using Discord (with BetterDiscord and a CSS theme overtop) on an i5 4460, and I can barely notice any latency when typing. The only time when I can get input latency past 100ms is when I'm rendering something in Blender, or have a high-CPU game running in the foreground.