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 nonsense.

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 lecturing

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 you writing:

It is possible to optimize performance through about:config settings (turn off disk cache, tune mem cache size and others).

Me replying:

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 discussion".

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.

Reply via email to