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).
Yep, I didn’t buy that RAM to sit being unused.
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…
Why could ram usage be a waste? I thought only the allocation is the performance heavy part, allocated ram does not cost extra performance.
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).
Ok, that makes sense, thank you.