On 17 September 2013 12:04, Meta <jared771@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:18:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> What kind of quantity are we talking? My VisualStudio2010 is humming away
>> right now at 80mb with a large project open (less than i expected).
>> It's a text editor... what does it do?
>>
>
> How in the world are you getting that small of a memory footprint? My CS2010 is currently using 203k with a fairly bare-bones project. Hell, it gobbles up 100k just idling with nothing open.
>

I presume you mean megabytes?
Well I've been working all morning since I made that comment; I have about
100 tabs open for editing in VS now (I don't clean up open tabs often >_<),
and it's sitting at 120mb.
For reference, that's considerably less than the chrome process that hosts
gmail (200mb!). About the same as the steam client which I haven't even
opened since I turned on my PC, and less than double that of dropbox
(70mb!).
I just booted eclipse, doing absolutely nothing, no projects open on the
start screen. over 410mb...
I don't know why modern software uses so much memory. But it seems
VisualStudio at ~100mb is pretty bloody good comparatively!

Dunno why you're seeing 200mb? (still less than my gmail tab...) Perhaps you use Visual Assist or some other bulky plugins? I only have Visual-D installed.

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 03:32:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
> I presume you mean megabytes?
> Well I've been working all morning since I made that comment; I have about
> 100 tabs open for editing in VS now (I don't clean up open tabs often >_<),
> and it's sitting at 120mb.
> VisualStudio at ~100mb is pretty bloody good comparatively!
>
> Dunno why you're seeing 200mb? (still less than my gmail tab...)
> Perhaps you use Visual Assist or some other bulky plugins? I only have
> Visual-D installed.


That's quite surprising, Visual Studio for me is always in the ~300MB or so range, often more. Right now using MonoDevelop on Linux with Mono-D is using ~500MB. That being said, I'm perfectly okay with IDEs using lots of memory. RAM is cheap, if the IDE can make itself even slightly better by using an extra 2GB when I have spare, I'd be happy to let it. I have 16GB in my laptop and 12GB in my desktop and nothing ever comes even remotely close to causing me to run out of memory. Things using CPU usage in the background however is quite frustrating. Somehow my most CPU intensive process on this laptop is my touchpad driver (touchegg), which likely kills battery life.

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 02:14:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 04:04:55 Meta wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 01:18:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> > What kind of quantity are we talking? My VisualStudio2010 is
>> > humming away
>> > right now at 80mb with a large project open (less than i
>> > expected).
>> > It's a text editor... what does it do?
>> 
>> How in the world are you getting that small of a memory
>> footprint? My CS2010 is currently using 203k with a fairly
>> bare-bones project. Hell, it gobbles up 100k just idling with
>> nothing open.
>
> He did say 80 _MB_ not, 80 KB. Whether that's a small footprint or not for VS,
> I don't know, but it's way more than the 203 KB that that you're talking
> about.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Heh, an unfortunate mistake. Just pretend I meant 203k kilobytes in base-10 kilobytes.

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 03:44:08 UTC, Kapps wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 03:32:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
>>
>> I presume you mean megabytes?
>> Well I've been working all morning since I made that comment; I have about
>> 100 tabs open for editing in VS now (I don't clean up open tabs often >_<),
>> and it's sitting at 120mb.
>> VisualStudio at ~100mb is pretty bloody good comparatively!
>>
>> Dunno why you're seeing 200mb? (still less than my gmail tab...)
>> Perhaps you use Visual Assist or some other bulky plugins? I only have
>> Visual-D installed.
>
>
> That's quite surprising, Visual Studio for me is always in the ~300MB or so range, often more. Right now using MonoDevelop on Linux with Mono-D is using ~500MB. That being said, I'm perfectly okay with IDEs using lots of memory. RAM is cheap, if the IDE can make itself even slightly better by using an extra 2GB when I have spare, I'd be happy to let it. I have 16GB in my laptop and 12GB in my desktop and nothing ever comes even remotely close to causing me to run out of memory. Things using CPU usage in the background however is quite frustrating. Somehow my most CPU intensive process on this laptop is my touchpad driver (touchegg), which likely kills battery life.

Eclipse is made for you :D

I tend to agree with you, considereing the benefit is high enough (it is in java or C# for instance). For D I disagree, as the benefit is not as high, and the frontend can consume quite a lot of memory, so having some extra memory around is a big deal (especially if you also run a browser somewhere, that will use several Gb of memory).

On 17 September 2013 13:43, Kapps <opantm2+spam@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 03:32:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>>
>> I presume you mean megabytes?
>> Well I've been working all morning since I made that comment; I have about
>> 100 tabs open for editing in VS now (I don't clean up open tabs often
>> >_<),
>> and it's sitting at 120mb.
>> VisualStudio at ~100mb is pretty bloody good comparatively!
>>
>> Dunno why you're seeing 200mb? (still less than my gmail tab...) Perhaps you use Visual Assist or some other bulky plugins? I only have Visual-D installed.
>>
>
>
> That's quite surprising, Visual Studio for me is always in the ~300MB or so range, often more. Right now using MonoDevelop on Linux with Mono-D is using ~500MB. That being said, I'm perfectly okay with IDEs using lots of memory. RAM is cheap, if the IDE can make itself even slightly better by using an extra 2GB when I have spare, I'd be happy to let it. I have 16GB in my laptop and 12GB in my desktop and nothing ever comes even remotely close to causing me to run out of memory. Things using CPU usage in the background however is quite frustrating. Somehow my most CPU intensive process on this laptop is my touchpad driver (touchegg), which likely kills battery life.
>

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.

Dunno what to tell you. My VS instance is pretty light.

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...

VS is light years better than MonoDevelop. MD is only good where VS is not available ;)

My task manager:
http://i.imgur.com/crbUrH1.png

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.

That being said, less memory == more of your working set in cache => faster program.

> 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

> 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 !

On 17 September 2013 15:48, deadalnix <deadalnix@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...

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 05:48:21 UTC, deadalnix 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.
>
> That being said, less memory == more of your working set in cache => faster program.
>
>> 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


Yet in 2013 still doesn't do color printing with syntax highlight, like any MS-DOS IDE used to offer around MS-DOS 5/6 timeframe, unless one installs third party plugins.

And the refactoring tools are a joke compared to Java IDEs, unless one installs a third party tool.

Even QtCreator has better C/C++ refactoring tools out of the box.


Visual Studio is a very good IDE, but in some areas it is surely lacking.

--
Paulo

Am 17.09.2013 08:24, schrieb Manu:
> 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...

QTCreator seems to get better and better, its fast, got features like VS+VisualAsssist included, easy to write plugins for, nice buildsystem

only part which is still not in (perfect) good state is the windows debugger integration

one of my customers is evaluating it for >1Mio LOC Projecs and ~30 developers, try to get rid of VS-IDE, but still using the VS compiler and debugger as backend and tools like incredibuild + gcc environment

On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 at 06:24:20 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 17 September 2013 15:48, deadalnix <deadalnix@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.