Sure, huge compiles are much slower when they hit swap, but at least it's possible to run them with swap, while it would be impossible for me to do so without.. at least until I can afford to get a new computer which can fit more memory.
Sure, huge compiles are much slower when they hit swap, but at least it's possible to run them with swap, while it would be impossible for me to do so without.. at least until I can afford to get a new computer which can fit more memory.
Old thinkpads (2012ish) run for a hundred bucks and some change, and some of them support up to 32 GB of ram, IIRC. The battery is a generic and replaceable component, too. They can last a lifetime! Or at least until FF et al renders 32 GB insufficient.
While upgrading for money works for some, less bloated software would work for everyone + no need to spend money to get acceptable build times + even if you have a super computer, you compilation times gets a lot faster. So aiming for less bloated software feels like a more noble goal than trying to convince people to upgrade their hardware.
I totally agree with you that less bloated software should be our goal. Although, realistically, if you're compiling a modern web browser you don't have much of a choice in the matter (unfortunately). I don't think that reducing bloat by an order of magnitude (i.e. a difference that would impact compile times) is on the radar of Chromium or FF.