this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
363 points (98.1% liked)
Programming
24083 readers
468 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't Reddit. You don't need to talk in absolutes.
Similar to WittyShizard, my experience is very different. Said Rust application uses 1200 dependencies and I think around 50 MB RAM. We had a Kotlin application beforehand, which used around 300 dependencies and 1 GB RAM, I believe. I would expect a JavaScript application of similar complexity to use a similar amount or more RAM.
And more efficient languages do have an effect on RAM usage, for example:
.iter()+.collect().I haven't posted anything on reddit in years. There is no need to start off a post with insults.
re: garbage collection
I wrote java back in 1997 and the programs used a few megabytes. Garbage collection doesn't in itself require significantly more ram because it only delays the freeing of ram that would have been allocated using a non garbage collection language. Syntatic sugar like iterators does not in general save gigabytes of ram.
The OP isn't talking about 500k apps now requiring 1MB. The article talks about former 85K apps now taking GB's of ram.
I don't know what part of that is supposed to be an insult.
And the article may have talked of such stark differences, but I didn't. I'm just saying that the resource usage is noticeably lower.