Java is not inherently a memory hog. I used to work for a game developer which will remain unnamed, all their stuff was Java based, and they used 64-128 MB. That included a full 3D engine and textures.

Java's boxing (you can't put an int in a HashMap without first copying it to the heap) and lack of value types (basically the same problem for structs) does impose some extra object references and headers other languages wouldn't require.

It's not that much overhead and Java has successfully been used in the embedded space for a long time. (The JVM is separate from the Java language.) From today's wiki page on embedded java, "Embedded Java minimal requirements start at 30KB of (internal) flash and less than 2KB of (internal) RAM." Sure sometimes you can't even meet that, but that's hardly Java's fault.

IME, it's not so much the amount of memory¹, as the pressure it places on the GC to keep up w/ these (often small, but numerous) allocations. Other languages can allocate and deallocate these types of structures with just a stack pointer move in both cases, since nothing ever leaves the stack. (I think Java's allocator is typically approximately or exactly as cheap as a pointer-move on allocation, but deallocation is another story.)

¹but I don't want to downplay this concern entirely; in the parent's case of an int needing boxing, that effectively doubles the cost: the int, and now the pointer to that int. (Plus any hidden requirements of the allocator, but even if we assume that's free, the story might still be plenty grim.)

>that effectively doubles the cost: the int, and now the pointer to that int.

Empty objects aren't free either, so you pay triple.

FireFox is not an option. It is an order of magniturd slower than Chrome.

Does anyone know anything about the memory usage of Edge?

You might want to try updating Firefox if you think it's an order of magnitude slower.

At least in JS scenarios, the difference is nowhere near that. It's actually trading the first place with chrome between tests: https://arewefastyet.com/

It's 2019 now. Try Firefox again. For me it feels faster than Chrome. And it has a reader view. That's on Linux and on Windows. On Mac, I admit, Chrome feels faster. But you have Safari.

Firefox's speed depends a lot on which extensions you use.

I use a bunch, like uBlock Origin, uMatrix, Tridactyl, Tree Style Tab, and Stylus, and Firefox slows down to a crawl for me when I have more than about 8 tabs open.

Now, some might advise not to use extensions, but using extensions is half the reason that I use Firefox at all in the first place, as Firefox without extensions really sucks.

I use uBlock Origin, uMatrix and Greasemonkey, and FireFox is nice and fast with several dozen tabs open for weeks at a time.

Slack leaks memory like there's no tomorrow, but that's on Slack. I just close the Slack tab and force a full GC/CC cycle and I get my memory back.

I'd do a binary search of sorts, disable half of the extensions and see if performance is still bad or not etc, to narrow it down to the offending extension(s).

> Firefox without extensions really sucks

The only extension I use is uBlock Origin. I've never felt the need for anything else whether it's on Firefox or Chrome.

Even at it's slowest, Firefox was never even close to an order of magnitude slower.

Geek culture has zero loyalty, otherwise people would run the product that has moral integrity even if it costs them a few milliseconds in load times.

>FireFox is not an option. It is an order of magniturd slower than Chrome.

This is objectively false.

> FireFox is not an option. It is an order of magniturd slower than Chrome.

False.

It's faster and lighter than Chrome on my machine.