> Actually what he said was he knew memory was a problem but it is designed for a different use case. The key part being the bit you’ve conveniently left off.

No, read the other thread where I said his use case can be satisfied at much less memory usage. There's nothing arrogant in suggesting there's a more efficient way to achieve something.

Yes, let's get back to work. Loads of feature requests to cater to, thanks to this share. :)