Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by concinds 2 hours ago
'It's worse for our users, but easier for our developers' is an unacceptable tradeoff, they deserve the backlash.
1 comments

I mean... Yes, but there's nuance here.

Using 400 MB of RAM vs 100 MB of RAM is close to unnoticeable in a world of a GB+ for a single Chrome tab... And if "easier for our developers" means the end user is getting more regular updates with fewer critical issues, then it's not an uncomplicated tradeoff at all, parts of it are actually synergistic.

There are 100s of processes running on my Windows without starting anything explicitly. They are using more than 10 gb of RAM. I am already feeling the consequences of this sloppiness. Especially that my IDE/compiler/emulator easily use 20+ GB. My 32 GB of memory is not enough somehow…
It does not matter how well or poorly Chrome mismanages memory, 400MB is still 400MB. If that 400MB is 10% of the free RAM after the share the OS takes, then that is a hefty toll. And the regular updates Windows 11 users are getting are famously not providing value, but taking value away. Case in point right here is the new media player.
A single Chrome tab does not use gigabytes. In fact, this app IS a Chrome tab! It's web based, so it's using Edge, which is just Chrome in a trenchcoat.
IME, there is a negative correlation “justifies increased memory consumption by citing DX” and “ships code with fewer critical issues.”
The problem is that it does not. At all.
How come I have never seen this tradeoff work in practice?
You see it all the time in Slack, Discord and so on.

Isn’t VS Code an Electron app? Or just its predecessor?

There is no nuance in 400%...
Of course there is. If it increased from 1MB to 4MB, that would definitely be insignificant