News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by foobaw on Monday September 24, 2018 @04:33PM (#18061150)
Do the emulator and compiler still require SSDs and 16GB+ RAM to be usable? I love Android Studio but it used to always feel very heavy-weight.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by Jaruzel on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @03:19AM (#18064244)
16Gb, Standard HDD, Mid range i5 processor. It's sluggish as hell. Takes an age to start up, the gui is slow, and compiling even a basic app taks forever, with much disk thrashing.

I've given up, and recently uninstalled it. I'm going to try and develop android apps using Xamarin in Visual Studio instead (as I have that anyway for Windows dev).

Re:Android Studio 3.2 by pjmlp on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @04:24AM (#18064491)
I am on the same path, even though it makes me feel a bit like hypocrite given my advocacy for native tooling vs third party, it actually does seem a better path to sanity.

Either that or just live with mobile Web and its constraints.

Re:Android Studio 3.2 by yrio on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @10:01PM (#18081657)
I often read complaints that Xamarin is buggy (builds randomly stop working, often need to restart Visual Studio, etc).

How's your personal experience with Xamarin? How's the tooling compared to Android Studio?

Re:Android Studio 3.2 by dvh on Monday September 24, 2018 @06:02PM (#18061862)
I'm using almost daily Android studio on Celeron J3455 with 4GB ram on Ubuntu 16.04 64bit and it's usable. I mostly do WebView apps, it is also on some cheap SSD.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by aikah on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:10AM (#18063757)
> I'm using almost daily Android studio on Celeron J3455 with 4GB ram on Ubuntu 16.04 64bit and it's usable. I mostly do WebView apps, it is also on some cheap SSD.

I don't think it's possible to run the emulator with more than 5 FPS with this kind of set up. Let alone the editor itself which frankly runs like crap on low end hardware. The irony is that eclipse was much much faster in constrained environments. It's like IntellJ spends its time indexing and when it's done it's doing some more indexing just for kicks.

Re:Android Studio 3.2 by anta40 on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @02:00AM (#18073124)
Android Studio runs fine on my laptop (only with 8 GB RAM). And I don't use emulators, though. Just straight run the code directly on the devices.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by lgleason on Monday September 24, 2018 @05:18PM (#18061542)
16GB is the bare minimum, but with some thrashing. 32 to really be usable, especially when running emulators.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by copperx on Monday September 24, 2018 @06:46PM (#18062141)
Why has this been downvoted? I like Android studio but you do need to have at least 32GB of RAM for it to feel snappy. 16GB gives you a very usable, but sometimes laggy experience.
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by kllrnohj on Monday September 24, 2018 @07:41PM (#18062441)
My AS + Emulator running together is sitting at 3GB RAM. Definitely doesn't need 16GB+
Re:Android Studio 3.2 by jtietema on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @05:54PM (#18070840)
You are probably not counting the Gradle daemon and kotlin compiler daemon. I have seen those grow to 4±GB and ~8GB respectively. Not using Kotlin definitely has advantages for memory usage.