Scarce means restricted in quantity.
No, it does not. It means "insufficient to satisfy the need or demand":
When your system does not swap, the amount of RAM is sufficient to satisfy
the need or demand. There is no scarcity of RAM.
One more time (as with the word "freedom"), you are rewriting the dictionary
to not admit you are wrong. You are ready to play dumb too:
Reading/writing 1GB of RAM is slower than reading/writing 1KB of RAM.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
You are also grossly distorting what we write (so that your wrong statements
about the sequentiality of RAM or its fragmentation eating up CPU cycles or
... do not look too stupid in comparison?):
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
And then you accuse us of derailing the discussion:
The space-time trade-off has absolutely nothing to do with where all this
started. (...) Then the whole discussion went into some unsolicited mini
By the way, sorry for using arguments, giving examples, etc.
It is easy to verify who derailed the "whole discussion" because he does not
want to admit he is wrong: just go up the hierarchy of posts. It starts with
It is possible to optimize performance through about:config settings (turn
off disk cache, tune mem cache size and others).
Caches are improving performances when you revisit a site.
And onpon4 adding the amount of RAM, which is not scarce nowadays, as the
only limitation to my affirmation, which can be generalized to many other
programming techniques that reduce time requirements by using more space:
Exactly. I don't think a lot of people understand that increased RAM and hard
disk consumption is often done intentionally to improve performance. The only
way reducing RAM consumption will ever help performance is if you're using so
much RAM that it's going into swap, and very few people have so little RAM
that that's going to happen.
Then you start saying we are wrong. Onpon4 and I are still talking about why
programs eating most of your RAM (but not more) are usually faster than the
so-called "lightweight" alternatives and how, in particular, caching improves
performance. In contrast, and although you stayed on-topic at the beginning
(e.g., claiming that "caching in RAM is not a performance benefit per se"),
you now pretend that "the space-time trade-off has absolutely nothing to do
with where all this started" and that "Reading/writing 1GB of RAM is slower
than reading/writing 1KB of RAM" is a relevant argument to close the "whole
Also, earlier, you were trying to question onpon4's skills, starting a
sentence with "I don't know what your programming experience is but". Kind
of funny from somebody who believe the Web could be broadcast to every user.
FYI, both onpon4 and I are programmers.