| |
| ▲ | senfiaj 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | IMHO, browsers might prioritize execution speed somewhat more than memory. There is the Pareto tradeoff principle where it's unlikely to optimize all the parameters - if you optimize one, you are likely to sacrifice others. Also more memory consumption (unlike CPU) doesn't decrease power efficiency that much, so, more memory might even help with that by reducing CPU usage with caching. | | |
| ▲ | oreally 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | TBH your comments come off as either very misleading or just uneducated on the nature of performance. Troubling indeed. | | |
| ▲ | senfiaj 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you enlighten me why it's misleading or uneducated? | | |
| ▲ | oreally 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | senfiaj 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You just read my comment very literally or carelessly. I mean in cases where it increases performance. It's not always that more memory = less CPU usage, but in many situations there is some tendency. For example, on older Windows, such as 98 or XP, applications draw directly on screen and had to redraw the parts of the exposed UI when windows were dragged (BTW, this is why many people, including myself, remember that famous artifact effect when applications were unresponsive on older Windows versions). When memory became cheaper, Vista switched the rendering model to compositing where applications render into private off-screen buffer. That is why moving windows became smoother, even though memory use went up. There is some memory / performance tradeoff, not always though. | | |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > on older Windows, such as 98 or XP, applications had to redraw the parts of the exposed UI when windows were dragged (BTW, this is why many people, including me, remember that famous cascading effect when applications were unresponsive on older Windows versions) i remember this and had no idea that's why it would be doing that. thanks, i learned something today. |
| |
| ▲ | Tade0 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You won't have cache misses if the reason why the application is using a lot of memory is that garbage collection is run less frequently than it could. That is the case with every mainstream JS engine out there and is one of the many tradeoffs of this kind. |
|
|
|
|
|
