> And its this obsession with shipping things as fast as possible quality be dammed (...)
You seem confused. Allocating more memory than optimal levels is not a measure of quality. Similarly, a web page is not suddenly lower quality if an image asset is 50kb instead of 25kb. And how much complexity and engineering effort and bugs are you willing to tolerate to halve your memory allocations?
You are conflating quality with mindless minimization, not even knowing or caring that are the tradeoffs. The blog post you're commenting on starts by presenting the case for celebrating small improvements, even 1% improvements at a time. A similar 1% improvement in a mobile app is at like 1MB. Do you ever notice it? How many hours of engineering effort are you hoping to spend on this nonsense? And you prefer to spend it on this or in actually fixing a bug or implementing a feature?
This puerile conflation of minimization with quality suggests your personal notion of quality has no bearing on what quality actually is.
> And how much complexity and engineering effort and bugs are you willing to tolerate to halve your memory allocations?
You seem to be confused about this relationship. It's usually exactly the opposite.
The wasteful applications are generally not well reasoned about and half assed implementations. That's why they're guzzling resources
There is ofc a middle ground, because targeting eg incredibly resource constrained embedded systems will naturally increase complexity, but that's something entirely different to the scenario this discussion was about up to this point.