Skip to content
loading...

re: Does your website really need to be larger than Windows 95? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: It is a complex question because software became more complex, the number of features increased and all that, the size will increase with all that....
 

software became more complex, the number of features increased and all that, the size will increase with all that.

Does it though? What is the one "complex" additional "feature" that rectifies the Slack text chat client being 100 times the size of a decent IRC text chat client? Or does the Atom text editor really have more features than an operating system from the 90s?

therefore both hardware and software evolved together in this little example.

Is the same performance on much faster hardware really an achievement worth to have?

 

I suspected you were talking about the Electron made apps. If to do a simple serverless function I have to have almost 100 MB of node libraries along with it, I cannot imagine what they need and the size of it...

If the software did much more than before, yes. If not, then it's inexcusable indeed.

 

The editing part of Atom isn't 100s of MB. The actual useful part of any Electron app isn't 100s of MB.

So the issue is that Electron is bloated, right? What if it had been a shared library instead? Now you can use Slack, Spotify, and Atom/VSCode and only paying that bloat cost once. That's much better.

Or what if there had existed a GUI toolkit/lib that ticked all the boxes that Electron does: 100% cross-platform. Unified appearance everywhere. Rapid and easy development.

Electron's popularity is a sign of failure for the existing GUI toolkits. It would never have taken off if GTK or QT had been able to compete on the same terms.

It took off because it enabled web developers to write desktop applications without having to learn a new language. It still has its problems.

A shared Electron library would add another: backwards compatibility.

My point of view about Electron is purely as an user, although a more knowledgeable one as a developer and to me its performance is the main issue. For main developer tasks, I use InteliJ IDEA, but I use VSCode to do some tasks I find easier there and to not create files on the project just keep a response from an API saved, etc. Okay, I use it and then I leave it opened there since I will need at some point later. When the time comes and I summon the windows it takes a bit more time than I think it is really necessary to come up, it takes less time to start it again than coming back to it later. With Postman is even worse, I have to literally close and open it again to make it usable again. I found out later that all of them have Electron in common. I read that Electron has memory management problems and I think it is true by my own experience.
InteliJ takes longer to start, but once it is done, the performance is constant, I can keep it opened the entire week without worries. For an IDE and development tools this is very important.

Okay, I use it and then I leave it opened there (...) I can keep it opened the entire week without worries.

That's fine if your machine does have enough "free resources" and you don't care about the power usage (and the environmental consequences). But some day your IntelliJ will require more resources than your computer could offer - and then? Time for a new computer, scrapping the old one?

When I mean the entire week, I mean to use it all day, suspend the notebook at the end of the day and come back up in the morning every day, Friday I shut down the notebook and we are back Monday. It uses 1~2 GB of memory, I bet Chrome uses more or less than same and I don't think VSCode can do any better than that if I used it to develop my apps and with less features, so... Well managed 2 GB is better than badly managed 2 GB.

The problem is that you consider 2 GB acceptable for any application.

I didn't say I consider acceptable for any application, I'm talking about InteliJ IDEA, arguably one of the best and full of features IDE. I don't think Chrome memory usage is acceptable, for example. It is a matter of giving and taking. We cannot come back to Windows 95, things evolved and accumulated, the applications will get bigger and more memory consuming. If it is fair or not is a case by case issue.

We cannot come back to Windows 95

And this is the core of the discussion: Why not? Why do we always need to make software fill all resources? What's wrong with efficiency?

code of conduct - report abuse