Base-model Macs won't be able to take advantage of Apple's flagship Xcode 16 feature: Predictive Code Completion.

There were a number of exciting announcements from Apple at WWDC 2024, from macOS Sequoia to Apple Intelligence. However, a subtle addition to Xcode 16 — the development environment for Apple platforms, like iOS and macOS — is a feature called Predictive Code Completion. Unfortunately, if you bought into Apple’s claim that 8GB of unified memory was enough for base-model Apple silicon Macs, you won’t be able to use it. There’s a memory requirement for Predictive Code Completion in Xcode 16, and it’s the closest thing we’ll get from Apple to an admission that 8GB of memory isn’t really enough for a new Mac in 2024.

  • _number8_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    imagine showing this post to someone in 1995

    shit has gotten too bloated these days. i mean even in my head 8GB still sounds like ‘a lot’ of RAM and 16GB feels extravagant

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      I still can’t fully accept that 1GB is not normal, 2GB is not very good, and 4GB is not all you ever gonna need.

      If only it got bloated for some good reasons.

      • Aux@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        High quality content is the reason. Sit in a terminal and your memory usage will be low.

        • lastweakness@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          So we’re just going to ignore stuff like Electron, unoptimized assets, etc… Basically every other known problem… Yeah let’s just ignore all that

          • Aux@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            5 months ago

            Is Electron that bad? Really? I have Slack open right now with two servers and it takes around 350MB of RAM. Not that bad, considering that every other colleague thinks that posting dumb shit GIFs into work chats is cool. That’s definitely nowhere close to Firefox, Chrome and WebStorm eating multiple gigs each.

            • lastweakness@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              5 months ago

              Yes, it really is that bad. 350 MBs of RAM for something that could otherwise have taken less than 100? That isn’t bad to you? And also, it’s not just RAM. It’s every resource, including CPU, which is especially bad with Electron.

              I don’t really mind Electron myself because I have enough resources. But pretending the lack of optimization isn’t a real problem is just not right.

              • Aux@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                5 months ago

                First of all, 350MB is a drop in a bucket. But what’s more important is performance, because it affects things like power consumption, carbon emissions, etc. I’d rather see Slack “eating” one gig of RAM and running smoothly on a single E core below boost clocks with pretty much zero CPU use. That’s the whole point of having fast memory - so you can cache and pre-render as much as possible and leave it rest statically in memory.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        The moment you use a file that is bigger than 1GB, that computer will explode.

        Some of us do more than just browse Lemmy.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          5 months ago

          Wow. Have you ever considered how people were working with files bigger than total RAM they had in the normal days of computing?

          So in your opinion if you have 2GB+ of a log file, editing it you should have 2GB RAM occupied?

          I just have no words, the ignorance.