Maybe it ought to be? It's actually appalling how much memory (not to mention processing power) is wasted in modern programs, purely from lazy coding practices and unnecessary UI "chrome" and effects.
We can afford that though, since memory has become so cheap that even a few MB more or less don't really matter to anyone anymore.
My prediction (which I know may end up in a similar lists in 20 years): RAM prices and SSD speeds will continue to fall/rise resp. so much that we can just put a couple of TB flash memory in our computer which serves both as persistent storage and working memory. This would open up some interesting new possibilities for software too, basically eliminating all storage-related loading times (software and OS startup, loading screens in games etc.)
Versatile software engineer with a background in .NET consulting and CMS development. Working on regaining my embedded development skills to get more involved with IoT opportunities.
Look up Intel Optane drives...basically Enterprise grade SSD drives that are fast enough to work as a RAM cache (to my very limited understanding). I have one in my room I've been meaning to play with but lack the proper adapter to connect it to one of my rack mount servers.
We can afford that though, since memory has become so cheap that even a few MB more or less don't really matter to anyone anymore.
You forget that managing memory costs CPU time.
High memory usage is often paired with high number of dynamic (de)allocation. This causes memory fragmentation. De-fragmenting memory costs even more effort.
High dynamic (de)allocation is not bad. Or at least, not in the Java world. Just do not keep the data around for a long time.
Indeed. There's a hard physical limit, at least until someone cracks the code for making a consumer-friendly system that stores at the atomic level...and even that has its limits.
It makes me value even more the memory we have. The average computer has more memory and CPU power than the supercomputers of the 80s. Wasting it on poor coding practice and unnecessary graphical fireworks is such a shame! We could be funneling all that wasted memory into more useful things, making our computers do far more than they do now, and far more efficiently.
That'd be nice, but I'll counter that it probably won't work out that way. As always, our lazy coding habits and unnecessary bells-and-whistles will take up all the available memory, even if there are terabytes of RAM available. Consider that a single tab in a web browser now takes up more memory than was available for the entire Apollo mission.
Also, I never trust flash/SSD for primary persistent storage. You can't recover data from it when it fails. This is why to this day, HDDs are still often used for persistent data where recovery is a necessary possibility; the recoverability is a side-effect of the physical characteristics.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hilarious!
Just one thought...
Maybe it ought to be? It's actually appalling how much memory (not to mention processing power) is wasted in modern programs, purely from lazy coding practices and unnecessary UI "chrome" and effects.
I need the shiny, Jason. I need it.
We can afford that though, since memory has become so cheap that even a few MB more or less don't really matter to anyone anymore.
My prediction (which I know may end up in a similar lists in 20 years): RAM prices and SSD speeds will continue to fall/rise resp. so much that we can just put a couple of TB flash memory in our computer which serves both as persistent storage and working memory. This would open up some interesting new possibilities for software too, basically eliminating all storage-related loading times (software and OS startup, loading screens in games etc.)
Look up Intel Optane drives...basically Enterprise grade SSD drives that are fast enough to work as a RAM cache (to my very limited understanding). I have one in my room I've been meaning to play with but lack the proper adapter to connect it to one of my rack mount servers.
EDIT: Fixed product name
You forget that managing memory costs CPU time.
High memory usage is often paired with high number of dynamic (de)allocation. This causes memory fragmentation. De-fragmenting memory costs even more effort.
High dynamic (de)allocation is not bad. Or at least, not in the Java world. Just do not keep the data around for a long time.
Unfortunately, we'll always be limited -- to some extent -- by memory hierarchies and physical distances in the machine:
electronics.stackexchange.com/a/82...
Indeed. There's a hard physical limit, at least until someone cracks the code for making a consumer-friendly system that stores at the atomic level...and even that has its limits.
It makes me value even more the memory we have. The average computer has more memory and CPU power than the supercomputers of the 80s. Wasting it on poor coding practice and unnecessary graphical fireworks is such a shame! We could be funneling all that wasted memory into more useful things, making our computers do far more than they do now, and far more efficiently.
Related: qr.ae/TWo1hM
That'd be nice, but I'll counter that it probably won't work out that way. As always, our lazy coding habits and unnecessary bells-and-whistles will take up all the available memory, even if there are terabytes of RAM available. Consider that a single tab in a web browser now takes up more memory than was available for the entire Apollo mission.
Also, I never trust flash/SSD for primary persistent storage. You can't recover data from it when it fails. This is why to this day, HDDs are still often used for persistent data where recovery is a necessary possibility; the recoverability is a side-effect of the physical characteristics.