Rust-based Discord achieves both, though... You can absolutely get an application to run faster while using less memory, given there's enough low-hanging fruit (and with today's software, there certainly is...).

If you're optimizing sorting algorithms, video decoding or compression software, then that's another story, because using more memory can trade time complexity for space complexity in your algorithm (i.e. Merge Sort vs Insertion Sort).

▲ broken-kebab 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Good, finally! Yet this branch started with the claim which isn't about Discord at all.

▲ doodlesdev 16 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a thread on the post about Discord and we're discussing the original statement below:

   > All the performance and other arguments are just not true, a well build webapp is often more performant than a native app especially for long scroll lists not even to mention accessibilty, extensions and more.

To which I think Discord's Rust rewrite is actually a great counter example. Epic Games's new launcher could've been too, but it's just vibe slop, unfortunately, not real engineering work.

The announced performance and memory usage also shows that using a browser tab (reducing overhead for separate browser processes) is still not enough to save memory compared to a native application, as this new Discord rewrite, with multiple accounts logged in, uses about the same memory as an empty new Chromium tab.

	▲	broken-kebab 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For starters, logic doesn't work this way at all. Counterexample doesn't make a valid argument against non-absolute statement. And the claim is that in-browser code can be as performant as natively compiled (as you conveniently quoted). So apparently building the case on Discord misses the point twice. Also for the sake of correctness: Discord CTO said the Rust-based app with 2 accounts uses around 290 MB which is significantly more than even the first empty tab uses (and each of the next will use smaller amount due to sharing).