• JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    2 months ago

    I don’t disagree with this. Software’s performance enshittification is maybe non intentional per-se, but it’s pretty obvious that devs don’t think they need to optimize until it’s confirmed that their software is insufferably slow. And I mean their software has to be so slow that it loses them customers in droves.

      • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        2 months ago

        True, though it’s a mix of culpability. We wouldn’t be in this situation if devs quit over poor managerial decisions. Devs keep their heads down and do the dirty work, so they’re also culpable in these trends. They don’t deserve defending, they deserve a wakeup call.

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          You got it.

          Its time to stop acting like all game devs are somehow totally free of responsibility from all this.

          I say this as a person who at least used to personally know game devs, mod devs, and I have been modding (as in making the mods) games since the mid 00’s.

          Yes, of course management is shitheads.

          But there are many game devs who don’t whore themselves out to corpos they know will do this dumb shit.

          There are many indie or AA or other devs who build games that are a little bit less graphically fancy, but run 3x as fast.

          Go right now and play Titanfall 2, built on a fork of the Portal 2 Source Engine variant, and tell me that any modern, comparable game really looks like it is so much more impressive it needs all the horsepower and cost that goes into getting it to run at the same resolution and framerate.

          If people wanna know more about the technicals of how optimization in games is largely a lost art now, go check Threat Interactive on youtube, that guy does an amazing job breaking this stuff down.

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      When possible, use open source software that isn’t developed by commercial entities (yes that also disqualifies all real browsers available - maybe Ladybird will be different? But then the specs themselves for the web are so bloated it takes too long to implement them and you have to cut corners).

      Thing with for-profit development is that micro-optimizations don’t make fiscal sense. Say it takes 10 seconds for an API call. That’s too long if it’s supposed to be an interactive website! You spend 4 hours getting 9 seconds off by improving multiple problematic methods. Now the next 900 milliseconds? Maybe that’ll take you 10 hours. Fun? Absolutely, I live for that shit. But in most commercial environments this would be considered a waste of time because I could spend it doing something more impactful.

      And anything being twice as fast or memory efficient is usually not noticeable. If you’re going to optimize something, it should be at least an order of magnitude. Therefore everything but low hanging fruits often gets ignored. Usually it’s a case of reconsidering your data structures to be able to use better algorithms, or reconsidering the business requirements to get rid of some processing that could be avoided. The former requires architectural insight not every developer has, plus agreement among devs. The latter may require outright navigating office politics to get product team to drop some low business impact feature requirement that has high impact on performance.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        2 months ago

        you really need people that want to make good software to get good software, i only use foss for the same reason

        idk if ladybird will get better performance than the others though, i honestly think it’s a web framework issue more than a browser issue, barebones lightweight browsers like netsurf are perfectly usable on well made sites like the arch wiki

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    Just be careful, I once downloaded some bad ram that wrecked my PC, since then I onky download locally sourced, free range RAM.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      0·
      2 months ago

      Doesn’t matter how happy the RAM supposedly was, you still pay for someone to cut it up into bytes and solder it into a chip.
      No one needs RAM anyway, you can easily live off CPU cache and SSD space.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    0·
    2 months ago

    Remember when games and applications were actually optimised? But yeah 32 GB of memory isn’t that uncommon anymore, now is it?

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    There’s a reason why modern browsers have multiple processes. Each tab and extension is sandboxed for stability and security reasons. There are also memory mechanisms that free up memory when other non-browser processes need it, but I am not an operating system expert/engineer so I am unable to explain it in details. Google Gemini it up.

    Also Firefox tends to use similar amount of RAM as Chrome, and it’s silly that it’s only Chrome is being making fun of for that.

    Of course it doesn’t meant that modern web is fucking shit, but you cannot only blame modern browsers for that. It’s just mostly bloated JavaScript bullshit.

    By the way, I wish there was some alternative to modern Web which works like basic HTML + CSS, maybe even without using two languages for two different things (website content and stylesheet). If we had this, we could even have lightweight Markdown/WikiText/You_name_it viewer if exported to that format on the fly (by an app not JS).