I'm too dumb for Zig's new IO interface

> (outside of very RAM-constrained hardware, at least)

I've spent much of my career working on desktop software, especially on Windows, and especially programs that run continuously in the background. I've become convinced that it's my responsibility to treat my user's machines as RAM-constrained, and, outside of any long-running compute-heavy loops, to value RAM over CPU as long as the program has no noticeable lag. My latest desktop product was Electron-based, and I think it's pretty light as Electron apps go, but I wish I'd had the luxury of writing it all in Rust so it could be as light as possible (at least one background service is in Rust). My next planned desktop project will be in Rust.

A recent anecdote has reinforced my conviction on this. One of my employees has a PC with 16 GB of RAM, and he couldn't run a VMware VM with 4 GB of guest RAM on that machine. My old laptop, also with 16 GB of RAM, had plenty of room for two such VMs. I didn't dig into this with him, but I'm guessing that his machine is infested with crap software, much of which is probably using Electron these days, each program assuming it can use as much RAM as it wants. I want to fight that trend.

You seem confused, I don't think I'll be responding further.

> The talk you're so excited about actually shows this asymptote.

Oh, I see the confusion. That asymptote is for the hypothetical case where the allocation rate grows to infinity (i.e. remains constant per core and we add more cores) while the heap remains constant. Yes, with an allocation rate growing to infinity, the cost of memory management (using any algorithm) also grows to infinity. That it's so obvious was his point showing why certain benchmarks don't make sense as they increase the allocation rate but keep the heap constant.

> So they don't go there, but it ought to have pulled you up short when you thought you could apply this understanding to an entirely unrelated paradigm.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand the theory of memory management. You obviously run into these problems even in C. If you haven't then you haven't been doing that kind of programming long enough. Some results are just true for any kind of memory management, and have nothing to do with a particular algorithm. It's like how in computational complexity theory, certain problems have a minimal cost regardless of the algorithm chosen.

> But at scale the other side matters - not the minimum but the maximum, and so whereas doubling from 16GB RAM to 32GB RAM was very cheap, doubling from 16 servers to 32 servers because they're full means paying twice as much, both as capital expenditure and in many cases operationally.

I've been working on servers in C++ for over 20 years, and I know the tradeoffs, and when doing this kind of programming seeing CPU exhausted before RAM is very common. I'm not saying there are never any other situations, but if you don't know how common this is, then it seems like you don't have much experience with low-level programming. Implying that the more common reason to need more servers is because what's exhausted first is the RAM is just not something you hear from people with experience in this industry. You think that the primary reason for horizontal scaling is dearth of RAM?? Seriously?! I remember that in the '90s or even early '00s we had some problems of not enough RAM on client workstations, but it's been a while.

In the talk he tells memory-management researchers about the economics in industry, as they reasonably might not be familiar with them, but decision-makers in industry - as a whole - are.

Now, don't get me wrong, low level languages do give you more control over resource tradeoffs. When we use those languages, sometimes we choose to sacrifice CPU for footprint and use a refcounting GC or a pool when it's appropriate, and sometimes we sacrifice footprint for less CPU usage and use an arena when it's appropriate. This control is the benefit of low level languages, but it also comes at a significant cost, which is why we use such languages primarily for software that doesn't deliver direct business value but is "pure overhead", like kernels, drivers, VMs, and browsers, or for software running on very constrained hardware.

> I didn't see any evidence.

The evidence is that in a highly competitive environment of great economic significance, where getting big payoffs is a way to get an edge over the competition, technologies that deliver high economic payoffs spread quickly. If they don't, it could be a case of some market failure, but then you'd have to explain why companies that can increase their profits significantly and/or lower their prices choose not to do so.

When you claim some technique would give a corporation a significant competitive edge, and yet most corporations don't take it (at least not for most projects), then that is evidence against that claim because usually companies are highly motivated to gain an advantage. I'm not saying it's a closed case, but it is evidence.

It's an entirely fair assessment within a framework of supremacism. "My language is the best. People who don't use it need to learn it. If they don't, they're bad programmers, maybe even bad people." It's a ugly spirit that no one is honest enough to admit to. But it's there. A few month ago, I saw a supposedly nice Rust leader calling SQLite "a terrible example of anything other than what you can accomplish when you pour enormous resources into a single C library."

The end result is that Rust's leaders either avoid interacting with other languages, or engage in flamewars. I think it's a big reason why Java, the most popular and successful memory safe language in the world, has little-to-no formal contacts with the Rust team.

It's perfectly valid to choose RAM over CPU. What isn't valid is believing that this tradeoff doesn't exist. However, cloud deployments are usually more CPU-constrained than RAM constrained, so it's important to know that more RAM can be used to save CPU when significant processing is spent on memory management.