> They are always limited. They are not always scarce.

Scarce means restricted in quantity. Of course they are always scarce, you don't have unrestricted amount of anything. Once again you are arguing for the sake of it.

The space-time trade-off has absolutely nothing to do with where all this started.

# What I was/am saying is:

> It is possible to use RAM inefficiently without swapping.

Reading/writing 1GB of RAM is slower than reading/writing 1KB of RAM. This is valid on any system regardless of the amount of RAM. Pseudo code:
a = 2
b = 3
c = 5 // wasted memory
d = a + b + a // wasted CPU and memory
is less efficient than
c = 5 // wasted memory
d = 7
is less efficient than

To that onpon4 replied:

> No, if you're not swapping, there's no performance loss. There is zero benefit to having RAM free that you're not using.

Which implies that one should fill up the whole available RAM just to print(7) and that won't affect performance + will add a benefit, which is nonsense. It is neither true, nor good practice, nor lightweight. Then the whole discussion went into some unsolicited mini lecturing and reached the point where

# What you are saying now is:

When using a powerful system (with more resources) it is more efficient to use the faster resource for a better space-time optimization instead of creating overhead.

Well, in case you have missed: I said that myself in #29 and as you see at least one person understood it from 3 sentences. And we neither argued, nor contradicted, nor we needed pages of nit picking just for the sake of demonstrating we have both read Wikipedia (or whatever).

As I said in another thread - arguments are a waste of time. So is off-topic noise.

Lightweight browsers are listed in the first link I shared.

Reply via email to