For a definition of "efficient" that isn't shared by anyone else. This isn't a new rationale either, but a well known trade-off involved with JIT compilation and garbage collection. It's the reason Chrome "hogs" memory and Firefox is perceived as slow: they make different resource usage tradeoffs.
It will be interesting to see if the current memory crunch will impact this calculus going forward.
> But what's the point in leaving available memory on the table if using it makes your program run faster? Efficient use of that resource wouldn't be to leave it untapped but to use it to speed up the program.
What’s the point of having a host with available memory? In today’s clouds, couldn’t you just downsize the host, and save on cost?
so its not memory efficient then...and nowadays the bottleneck is in memory access not cpu cycles, so the claim more memory use speeds up compute is very doubtful
For a definition of "efficient" that isn't shared by anyone else. This isn't a new rationale either, but a well known trade-off involved with JIT compilation and garbage collection. It's the reason Chrome "hogs" memory and Firefox is perceived as slow: they make different resource usage tradeoffs.
It will be interesting to see if the current memory crunch will impact this calculus going forward.
Firefox uses more memory than chrome in all my tests when I was using it for VNC (x11).
> But what's the point in leaving available memory on the table if using it makes your program run faster? Efficient use of that resource wouldn't be to leave it untapped but to use it to speed up the program.
What’s the point of having a host with available memory? In today’s clouds, couldn’t you just downsize the host, and save on cost?
so its not memory efficient then...and nowadays the bottleneck is in memory access not cpu cycles, so the claim more memory use speeds up compute is very doubtful
It doesn't use more memory (at least not due to GC itself), it wastes some memory that it won't touch again unless absolutely necessary.