Depends on settings and the amount of availlable RAM. Install fedora KDE spin on three systems, one with 4GB, one with 8 and one with say 16GBs of RAM. You should see, that the vanilla install of KDE uses different amounts of RAM on each system. KDE uses caching of all kinds of stuff to make the overall experience smoother. The amount and aggressivenes of the caching depends on distribution defaults. And KDE using, say, 8GB of RAM when idling isn't bad. RAM is only useful, when it is used. When memory pressure increases (applications are actively using lots of RAM), KDE will automatically reduce cache sizes to free the RAM up again.

The entire notion of the system using as little RAM as possible is really weird and usually (imho) shows that people who say that don't understand how the RAM is used. I want my system to make good use of my RAM, and as much of that as is reasonable.

You know that that is only an option and not a forced replacement for the "proper" API, right? Nobody is stopping you/me from writing plasmoid logic in C++.

pkgsrc and *BSD entered the chat.

Don't bother arguing with him. AUR is special because it is arch and arch is special and because he is using it and it has to be special!

Oh man, I am too tired. I read that as "Some comrades can't be executed by keyboard shortcuts ..." and was like, wtf! Then I read it again.

it will help developers

Until they break it.

ship extensions faster

Which they need to adress the regular breakages.

and with fewer bugs by using standard JavaScript modules and IDE support

If I wanted to suffer web technologies, I'd develop content targeting web browsers, not a DE. JavaScript does a lot of things, being conducive to bug free code is not one of them.

I really admire the pain tolerance and endurance of devs developing and maintaining extensions for gnome. At what point does it become acceptable for them to drop that garbage DE? Rhetoric question: always has been.

Heed the warning ;-)

Jk. It's not black magic. Just do as AlpacaChariot said. You might want to read up on it a bit https://www.shell-tips.com/bash/environment-variables/

It's certainly no bad habit to handle spaces in scripts preemptively, and obviously they do occur in the wild. Quotes from ls output do not get piped to other commands. I had to look that up myself right now, because it has been quite a while since it mattered to me.

$ touch 'file with spaces in name'
$ ls
'file with spaces in name'
$ ls | cat
file with spaces in name
$ 

Looking through some scripts I wrote back in the day, I seem to like to use ls -1 in scripts. I guess that reduces ambiguity on what the separator is.

Repeating false statements doesn't make them true. fyi: that's a criticism of your comments ;-)

Feel free to travel back in time and have a discussion with Ken Thompson in ~1970, whether spaces in file/folder names should be allowed in the first place. I for one use an underscore instead, whenever I have control.

It's really neither a bug nor a problem. It is very reasonable default behavior to enable piping to or parsing by other commands because space is the default separator for arguments.

Add-on: you really don't need to get rid of the quotes. It's a very reasonable behavior. You just need to learn/understand what they mean.

The backslash escapes the space because it would otherwise denote a seperator to the next argument of the command. ls a b c means invoke ls with the three arguments a,b, and c. ls 'a b c' or ls a\ b\ c means invoke ls with one argument "a b c". That behavior is universal for pretty much all unix/linux shells (ie bash).