Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Standalone Signal Desktop

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 320 posts

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#261

Post by 72deluxe »

aluhut wrote: post #223
72deluxe wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me old, but how can a messaging app like this use 130MB RAM? I am exasperated that Skype on my machine is using 109MB with only one conversation window open. We seemed to get by with MSN Messenger with far less RAM, and the features were pretty much identical. It boggles the mind how memory-intensive some of the modern apps are. It's insane.

Wow Skype with 109MB?! Last time I've had it installed it was something close to a gig. But then it became a cluttered monster I rather fear so that's not relevant anymore. Same goes for this. I'm happy to give that RAM to Signal since what I get for it, is more then worth it and I have the RAM left. It took me more time and headaches to get people to use Signal on their phones in the first place than it will ever fo…

This is odd. It indicates a badly written application with disregard for resources.

If efficient use of something like RAM is blatantly disregarded, what about more important things like performance-critical sections of code? Would you be happy that it is shoddily written?

The same approach on a mobile device would be widely condemned due to the hogging of RAM. I don't see why the same metrics cannot be applied to desktop software.

Is the solution for badly-written slow software "just get a faster CPU"?

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#262

Post by 72deluxe »

StavrosK wrote: post #238
wh313 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Electron has taken over desktop app development. While it does significantly lower the knowledge barrier to building desktop applications, it does come with a heavy memory overhead.

Honest question: What's an easy-to-use, popular cross-platform framework with bindings to a sane language? Something like QT/GTK to Python? I hate Electron, but what's the alternative? I used wxWindows back in the day, with Boa Constrictor, and I loved that workflow.

I think wxWidgets is still around and they have Python bindings (not used it, but have used the C++ wxWidgets a lot).

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#263

Post by 72deluxe »

jorvi wrote: post #225
72deluxe wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me old, but how can a messaging app like this use 130MB RAM? I am exasperated that Skype on my machine is using 109MB with only one conversation window open. We seemed to get by with MSN Messenger with far less RAM, and the features were pretty much identical. It boggles the mind how memory-intensive some of the modern apps are. It's insane.

That is actually not a bad amount, the native Telegram macOS client hovers around the same. WhatsApp Web (also built on Electron) consumes a staggering 300-500mb.

What constitues a "bad amount"? It is displaying a series of text onscreen, with a history of messages for each contact. What's it eating all that RAM for? My mind boggles.

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#265

Post by jacobush »

digi_owl wrote: post #217
jacobush wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft tried to be backwards compatible with msvcrt.dll . It’s just too much inertia. Also you need to be bug for bug compatible or you may break some old app. Apps may even depend upon behaviour you didn’t know was there.

Yes there is a point of diminishing return. But all too often these days it feels like projects are not ever trying.

Maybe because it's not clear there is much to had by trying. The pendulum is currently in swing the other way - see macOS ".app" folders, in effect statically linking apps. And the various Linux initiatives to similar effect.

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#266

Post by andrepd »

72deluxe wrote: post #218
aluhut wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single of those happened to me. Are you sure there is nothing wrong with your PC? It uses 130MB RAM here (Win). How much is it on your side?

Call me old, but how can a messaging app like this use 130MB RAM? I am exasperated that Skype on my machine is using 109MB with only one conversation window open. We seemed to get by with MSN Messenger with far less RAM, and the features were pretty much identical. It boggles the mind how memory-intensive some of the modern apps are. It's insane.

I get what you're saying and I totally agree with the sentiment, but in this case I can let it slide. It's the only practical way to make a cross platform app for Linux, Windows and Mac. They simply don't have the resources to write and maintain (at least) three desktop apps. I can totally understand that a small company has to make compromises like writing their desktop apps in Electron.

That large companies also do this is another story entirely.

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#267

Post by andrepd »

interfixus wrote: post #251
jorvi wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is actually not a bad amount, the native Telegram macOS client hovers around the same. WhatsApp Web (also built on Electron) consumes a staggering 300-500mb.

Wow! A race to the bottom of the memory pool. Electron is several things which HN guidelines probably won't allow me to describe here. I avoid it whenever I can.

That's all very true, but can you point to an alternative? If you were a small team with few resources, and you wanted to ship a cross-platform desktop app, what would you choose?

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#268

Post by OldSchoolJohnny »

andrepd wrote: post #266
72deluxe wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me old, but how can a messaging app like this use 130MB RAM? I am exasperated that Skype on my machine is using 109MB with only one conversation window open. We seemed to get by with MSN Messenger with far less RAM, and the features were pretty much identical. It boggles the mind how memory-intensive some of the modern apps are. It's insane.

I get what you're saying and I totally agree with the sentiment, but in this case I can let it slide. It's the only practical way to make a cross platform app for Linux, Windows and Mac. They simply don't have the resources to write and maintain (at least) three desktop apps. I can totally understand that a small company has to make compromises like writing their desktop apps in Electron. That large companies also do…

I disagree completely, a single page application can be used on any of those platforms in browser and doesn't require Electron at all.

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#269

Post by ivm »

StavrosK wrote: post #238
wh313 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Electron has taken over desktop app development. While it does significantly lower the knowledge barrier to building desktop applications, it does come with a heavy memory overhead.

Honest question: What's an easy-to-use, popular cross-platform framework with bindings to a sane language? Something like QT/GTK to Python? I hate Electron, but what's the alternative? I used wxWindows back in the day, with Boa Constrictor, and I loved that workflow.

Xamarin + native UIs

Re: Standalone Signal Desktop

#270

Post by digi_owl »

jacobush wrote: post #265
digi_owl wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there is a point of diminishing return. But all too often these days it feels like projects are not ever trying.

Maybe because it's not clear there is much to had by trying. The pendulum is currently in swing the other way - see macOS ".app" folders, in effect statically linking apps. And the various Linux initiatives to similar effect.

Apple has been doing that thing for ages.

And much of the stuff on the Linux side seems to be driven by upstream (Flatpak in particular has come out of the Gnome camp), and is riding the "containerization fever".

Post reply on HN