On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 06:39:59 UTC, Brad Anderson
wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 06:24:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
On 17 September 2013 15:48, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 05:32:28 UTC, Manu wrote:
In my experience, more memory == slower. If you care about
performance,
the
only time it's acceptable to use more memory is if your data
structures
are
as efficient as they can get, and the alternative is reading
off the hard
drive.
Bandwidth isn't free, cache is only so big, and logic to
process and make
use of so much memory isn't free either. It usually just
suggests
inefficient (or just lazy) data structures, which often also
implies
inefficient processing logic.
And the more memory an app uses, the higher chance of
invoking the page
file, which is a mega-killer.
I do agree as this is generally true. However, the problem
isn't really
cache size or bandwidth, but rather latency. We know how to
increase
bandwith or cache size, but the first one come at a cost with
no big
benefit, and the second come at increase of cost and increase
of latency.
What is capping the perf here is really latency.
Latency bottlenecks are usually a function of inefficient
cache usage, or a
working set that's too large and non-linear.
That being said, less memory == more of your working set in
cache => faster
program.
Precisely.
Dunno what to tell you. My VS instance is pretty light.
Yup, VS is one of these program that microsoft did better
than the
alternative :D
Perhaps the only one, and also the single reason I still use
Windows
(despite their best efforts to ruin it more and more with
almost every
release!). There is STILL no realistic alternative for my
money, well over
a decade later...
I don't get it. VS has been there a long time. It's not even
perfect; farm
from it in fact. But the fact that given over a decade of
solid working
example, nobody has yet managed to create a competitive
product just blows
my mind...
Seriously, where is the competition? I probably use about 10%
of VS's
features, but the features that I do use and rely on work, and
work well.
Although even they could be significantly improved in some
very simple ways.
I closed about half my open tabs after my last email (~50 left
open). Down
to 93mb. You must all use some heavy plugins or something.
My current solution has 10 projects, one is an entire game
engine with
over
500 source files, hundreds of thousands of LOC. Intellisense
info for all
of it... dunno what to tell you.
Eclipse uses more than 4 times that much memory idling with
no project
open
at all...
4 times ? You must have a pretty light instance of eclipse !
It's a fairly fresh eclipse install, and I just boot it up. It
showed the
home screen, no project loaded. It was doing absolutely
nothing and well
into 400mb.
When I do use it for android and appengine, it more or less
works well
enough, but the UI feels like it's held together with
stickytape and glue,
and it's pretty sluggish. Debugging (native code) is slow and
clunky. How
can I take that software seriously?
I probably waste significant portion of my life hovering and
waiting for
eclipse to render the pop-up variable inspection windows. That
shit needs
to be instant, no excuse. It's just showing a value from ram.
Then I press a key, it doesn't take ages for the letter to
appear on the
screen...
Better get used to it. The Gaben has spoken:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/gabe-newell-linux-is-the-future-of-gaming-new-hardware-coming-soon/
I actually agree, my experience with full blown IDEs other than
VS has been terrible (and I just spent all day fixing a VS 2010
PCH corruption bug). I've always got my beloved vim to fall
back on though.
Well, they want to sell their own console, Linux based.
So of course they need to create awareness for it.
Which is good for Linux gaming in general, but like commercial
UNIXes, unless you use the right distribution, there is nothing
for you, because of the typical fragmentation issues.
