Being conservative on RAM usage doesn't mean to reduce it on any price. It means not taking any decision which increases memory usage lightly, and to err more in the direction of too little than too much memory usage. It means caring about memory usage, and not wasting much memory for minor improvements. It means specifically thinking about how memory usage can be improved, and giving that topic a priority.
Hi batman ! [ Af:0 At:7 Sp:0] Welcome, batman. Type "help" if you need it. batman - Hi [ Af:0 At:8 Sp:0] Hello. batman - How are you? [ Af:0 At:9 Sp:0] I'm pretty good. And you? batman - I'm pretty bad [ Af:0 At:10 Sp:0] I'm sorry to hear that. What's wrong? batman - My batmobile is out of order. [ Af:0 At:10 Sp:0] Then you are deluded and not my type. batman - Why? [ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] It's fun chatting with you. Why gets way too philosophical. Demonic possession is not a myth. We had one for a president. batman - Your president was a demon? [ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] I would never want to be president. Lousy hours, awful co-workers, a chance of being killed, no chance to sneak around privately. batman - You didn't answer my question. [ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] I've forgotten it already. batman - You seem to have a really bad memory. [ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] Computers improve productivity. It's people that slack off. batman - Why do I have the feeling that whatever you say has no relation to what I just said? [ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] Mostly it's the result of prior experiences. It seemed like a good idea at the time. batman - What seemed like a good idea? batman - Hello? batman - Are you still there?
As you see, the answer almost never relates to what I just said, except for the pretty standard opening. I guess the non-answering at the end was because of a sort of Slashdot effect.
And that explains that they're second only to MS in market share and why they're more broadly available than the other browsers?
Well, AFAIK all other relevant competitors came later, after Firefox showed that you can compete with Microsoft. Most didn't have much time yet to build up a lot of market share. Note that I don't consider browsers which don't run on Windows relevant here, because anything which doesn't run on Windows wouldn't beat Firefox even if it had an user base of 100% on the platforms it supports.
I think Firefox uses more memory if it thinks your computer has a lot of memory, and vice versa if your computer has little memory. That's actually a good thing.
No it isn't. You rarely run Firefox as the only program, and if Firefox eats RAM because it's "available" then other programs will have less memory available. A web browser is a typical "background application" (i.e. you keep it open while working with other programs) and therefore should use as little memory as reasonably possible. The attitude of "the memory is available, so I can use it" was appropriate in DOS, but it's generally not appropriate on a multitasking OS.
Will it also immediately free that RAM if another program needs it? A browser should always be conservative on RAM usage, even if it seems to have plenty available.
I guess another is that you cannot simply copy a web app, because much of the logic lies on a server. Moreover, you can monitor the use of the program (for good, improving it based on usage data, and bad, targeted advertising based on content). And with for-pay web apps, you'll pay a monthly fee, as opposed to a one-time fee per license as currently done for many common programs. And you can easily revoke licenses if your users do things you don't approve.
Or in short: With web apps, you have complete control.
1. Cheating = Your source code is completely exposed (and more so than flash.) So any new game you put up is going to be "finished" in 30 seconds with all achievements and a 2 trillion point score.
So what? Anyone doing that would just deprive himself from the fun of playing.
2. Multiplayer griefing = If all the game's logic is in javascript, then it's a simple matter of changing things so you have an advantage.
That only applies to multiplayer games. For those I'd expect the game logic to reside mostly on the server anyways. For games where this is not appropriate, JavaScript is not the right choice, I agree. But that's not the category of games which I'd expect to be browser based anyway.
3. Malware = Developers are not all the same, when an entire motive of a game is to garner ad revenue, then the game is going to be riddled with holes that either allow the player to rig the "ad" viewing experience,or remove it entirely, just like back in the day of 'ad tool bars' and bots.
In short, you can block ads in the browser. Yes, that's nothing new, and nothing specific to JavaScript and games.
I frequently keep the browser open to keep the current-day version of a daily changing web site available the next day when I didn't find the time to read all of it.
Fortunately I don't need to restart the browser daily; maybe it's because I use AdBlock and NoScript.
The Firefox developers care. Because it means that they finally are no longer much slower than the competition (given the small difference in the current benchmark, I'd say a more accurate headline would be "Firefox has caught up with Chrome speed).
That's not the same thing, moron. Copyrighting a poem and trademarking it as a name are two separate issues.
You are the moron: I never claimed that copyrighting and trademarking are the same thing. However, you (assuming you're the same AC) explicitly claimed "You CAN'T copyright a name." I gave an example of a name that you can copyright. You can also trademark it (unless there's a limit to the length of names you can trademark), but that's besides the point.
Well, if the name is long and creative enough, I'm sure you also can copyright it. For example, you could use a 20 line poem as name of your product. It's probably not a good idea, but it's certainly not forbidden.
Well, probably his time machine has the same restrictions as the time machine I've once built: You can only go into the future, and that only at a speed of one second per second.
Slashdot Mirror
Being conservative on RAM usage doesn't mean to reduce it on any price. It means not taking any decision which increases memory usage lightly, and to err more in the direction of too little than too much memory usage. It means caring about memory usage, and not wasting much memory for minor improvements. It means specifically thinking about how memory usage can be improved, and giving that topic a priority.
This is quite easy to spot as non-human ...
Hi batman !
[ Af:0 At:7 Sp:0] Welcome, batman. Type "help" if you need it.
batman - Hi
[ Af:0 At:8 Sp:0] Hello.
batman - How are you?
[ Af:0 At:9 Sp:0] I'm pretty good. And you?
batman - I'm pretty bad
[ Af:0 At:10 Sp:0] I'm sorry to hear that. What's wrong?
batman - My batmobile is out of order.
[ Af:0 At:10 Sp:0] Then you are deluded and not my type.
batman - Why?
[ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] It's fun chatting with you. Why gets way too philosophical. Demonic possession is not a myth. We had one for a president.
batman - Your president was a demon?
[ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] I would never want to be president. Lousy hours, awful co-workers, a chance of being killed, no chance to sneak around privately.
batman - You didn't answer my question.
[ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] I've forgotten it already.
batman - You seem to have a really bad memory.
[ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] Computers improve productivity. It's people that slack off.
batman - Why do I have the feeling that whatever you say has no relation to what I just said?
[ Af:0 At:13 Sp:0] Mostly it's the result of prior experiences. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
batman - What seemed like a good idea?
batman - Hello?
batman - Are you still there?
As you see, the answer almost never relates to what I just said, except for the pretty standard opening.
I guess the non-answering at the end was because of a sort of Slashdot effect.
Well, AFAIK all other relevant competitors came later, after Firefox showed that you can compete with Microsoft. Most didn't have much time yet to build up a lot of market share. Note that I don't consider browsers which don't run on Windows relevant here, because anything which doesn't run on Windows wouldn't beat Firefox even if it had an user base of 100% on the platforms it supports.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
It means a client with flat screen, right? :-)
Your sig:
This will not work unless you give us your password. :-)
No it isn't. You rarely run Firefox as the only program, and if Firefox eats RAM because it's "available" then other programs will have less memory available. A web browser is a typical "background application" (i.e. you keep it open while working with other programs) and therefore should use as little memory as reasonably possible. The attitude of "the memory is available, so I can use it" was appropriate in DOS, but it's generally not appropriate on a multitasking OS.
Will it also immediately free that RAM if another program needs it? A browser should always be conservative on RAM usage, even if it seems to have plenty available.
I guess another is that you cannot simply copy a web app, because much of the logic lies on a server. Moreover, you can monitor the use of the program (for good, improving it based on usage data, and bad, targeted advertising based on content). And with for-pay web apps, you'll pay a monthly fee, as opposed to a one-time fee per license as currently done for many common programs. And you can easily revoke licenses if your users do things you don't approve.
Or in short: With web apps, you have complete control.
What the fuck does that mean?!
Web 3.0, obviously. :-)
Yeah, a good benchmark would be how long it takes to show a Slashdot page with 500+ comments.
So what? Anyone doing that would just deprive himself from the fun of playing.
That only applies to multiplayer games. For those I'd expect the game logic to reside mostly on the server anyways. For games where this is not appropriate, JavaScript is not the right choice, I agree. But that's not the category of games which I'd expect to be browser based anyway.
In short, you can block ads in the browser. Yes, that's nothing new, and nothing specific to JavaScript and games.
I frequently keep the browser open to keep the current-day version of a daily changing web site available the next day when I didn't find the time to read all of it.
Fortunately I don't need to restart the browser daily; maybe it's because I use AdBlock and NoScript.
OK, let's try to fill according to your instructions ...
My wife / husband / significant other is longer than yours.
My d*ck is more expensive than yours.
My javascript is harder than yours.
Hmmm ... somehow doesn't work that well ... :-)
So what you are saying is that Mozilla doesn't have enough golfers?
The Firefox developers care. Because it means that they finally are no longer much slower than the competition (given the small difference in the current benchmark, I'd say a more accurate headline would be "Firefox has caught up with Chrome speed).
Given that a lot of the browser is implemented in JavaScript, it should also make the browser itself faster.
Well, if it sucks, maybe you should implement a vacuum cleaner with it.
You are the moron: I never claimed that copyrighting and trademarking are the same thing. However, you (assuming you're the same AC) explicitly claimed "You CAN'T copyright a name." I gave an example of a name that you can copyright. You can also trademark it (unless there's a limit to the length of names you can trademark), but that's besides the point.
Well, if the name is long and creative enough, I'm sure you also can copyright it. For example, you could use a 20 line poem as name of your product. It's probably not a good idea, but it's certainly not forbidden.
He's a blogger, not a developer.
He develops blog entries. :-)
nah there is a general problem.... how can i get cable without a isp?
You can buy all sorts of cable in shops, and they won't ask you for an ISP. Do you want a power cable, or maybe a CAT5?
And if he used a phone in the crime, he's forbidden to use phones?
What if he hid something in his clothes, is he then required to be naked?
But the password "encryption" is lossy. If you still call that encryption, I'll introduce you to my nice encryption program:
It's strictly one-way and completely unbreakable.
And now imagine that radio would have been digital back then ...
Well, probably his time machine has the same restrictions as the time machine I've once built: You can only go into the future, and that only at a speed of one second per second.