Re: Firefox fat on Javascript?

[email protected] schrieb:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 01:27:01 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/11 11:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> [It seems reasonable for a browser to require at least 143 MiB of
>>> physical memory.]
>
> Maybe it is, but my intuition says otherwise

I agree with you that a "browser" should be able to run with less 
memory, but then, what we have in Firefox, Chrome, IE9, Safari, etc. 
today are not "browsers" but "web runtimes", if you will. The collection 
of lean documents that the web once was has evolved to being an 
ever-growing application platform, and many of the often-used websites 
today actually are more web applications than what "web pages" were 
10-15 years ago.
And for the web application runtime engines that have become of our 
"browsers" of old it's really reasonable to require that amount of 
memory, esp. given the fact that even most smartphones sold today have 
more available than that.

Robert Kaiser


-- 
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never 
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible 
arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, 
I even appreciate irony and fun! :)