← Back to context

Comment by rstat1

9 hours ago

And its this obsession with shipping things as fast as possible quality be dammed that got us basic weather apps that eat a gigabyte+ of RAM.

And yet the world still turned

  • The world turned millenia ago and will turn millenia later.

    The problem statement is of applications using up expensive RAM. Incidentally, expensive RAM is just one of the problems we face in the computing space. Forced obsolescence is another, when running hardware needs to be replaced because software is built for only newer CPUs.

    • > because software is built for only newer CPUs.

      You are right, but it reads (to me, could be just me) you mean newer specs which used to be true when I shipped software in the 70-90s; you mean faster machines / more memory right? Like installing a new version of software or OS and suddenly all memory is used, system is swapping and you did not ask for that but some obscure feature you didn't need needed to be shipped fast.

    • > The problem statement is of applications using up expensive RAM. Incidentally, expensive RAM is just one of the problems we face in the computing space.

      You need to stop and think about the problem. Nowadays RAM is expensive because many people now want to max out their computers with RAM to run LLMs and AI coding assistants. Today's software is still the same software that ran perfectly well half a dozen years ago. Cloudflare happens to operate a large global computer infrastructure, and it's scale is such that 1% gains are lauded as fantastic cost savers. But that's the bean counter's perspective, pointing out that they saved a bean.

      1 reply →

  • That statement can be used to justify anything, to the point it is utterly useless.

    — Humanity has been on the decline. People are hateful towards each other, striking their fellow man and poisoning the environment. Despots eventually launched nukes which killed everyone but the cockroaches.

    — And yet the world still turned.

> And its this obsession with shipping things as fast as possible quality be dammed (...)

You seem confused. Allocating more memory than optimal levels is not a measure of quality. Similarly, a web page is not suddenly lower quality if an image asset is 50kb instead of 25kb. And how much complexity and engineering effort and bugs are you willing to tolerate to halve your memory allocations?

You are conflating quality with mindless minimization, not even knowing or caring that are the tradeoffs. The blog post you're commenting on starts by presenting the case for celebrating small improvements, even 1% improvements at a time. A similar 1% improvement in a mobile app is at like 1MB. Do you ever notice it? How many hours of engineering effort are you hoping to spend on this nonsense? And you prefer to spend it on this or in actually fixing a bug or implementing a feature?

This puerile conflation of minimization with quality suggests your personal notion of quality has no bearing on what quality actually is.

  • > And how much complexity and engineering effort and bugs are you willing to tolerate to halve your memory allocations?

    You seem to be confused about this relationship. It's usually exactly the opposite.

    The wasteful applications are generally not well reasoned about and half assed implementations. That's why they're guzzling resources

    There is ofc a middle ground, because targeting eg incredibly resource constrained embedded systems will naturally increase complexity, but that's something entirely different to the scenario this discussion was about up to this point.