[elch]

How is "performance" defined? Does it take into account the amount of memory required in each case?

[Filligree]

The purpose of limiting memory use is so your computer does not become laggy as you run out of memory. We don’t do it for its own sake.

But then, what’s the point in using an inherently laggy technique to save memory?

[desdenova]

The purpose of not wasting memory is so we have free memory to use productively.

What's the point of having 64-128GB of RAM if we're using apps that eat 10GB to do the same things we were doing 20 years ago using a few MB?

[dive]

Was going to answer almost the same.

This is my pet project, a desktop app for working with xAI models & capabilities, so by "performance" I mostly mean "pleasant to use" (as it goes, simple & opinionated). Technically speaking, something like: stable FPS, no visible lags, and the ability to scroll smoothly while the model is streaming.

Regarding the parent comment: yes, memory is important, and I absolutely get the point. There should be a red line, for sure. But I will not sacrifice UX, productivity, and simple pleasure from using software just to save a few hundred megabytes of RAM (or even a few gigabytes) especially for an app I spend hours with behind the screen.

Memory consumption can & should be optimised with proper engineering for sure. As lags & inadequate performance in basic SDK-level primitives are much harder (impossible?) to fix from the outside.

[elch]

How about running many tasks on the machine at the same time?

[skeledrew]

Apparently devs forget that there are other apps running on the target machines. It's OK to just gobble as much of the resources as possible.

[elch]

I am sure that they use MacBook Neo for development. /s

[dist-epoch]

first you make it correct, than you make it fast

a fast performant incomplete solution will lose to a slow correct complete one

[xigoi]

You can’t make a lightweight airplane by making a heavy airplane and cutting off some parts.