As a counterpart, if you have to layoff that many people, is it really the right time to also put the stress of a leadership shift into the company?
I can see the argument for this triggering an eventual change, but having _both_ the chock of a CEO change _and_ 28% of the company being layed off at the same time seems unwise.
I will say, this is why I love the JVM so much. Runs on everything, I can pull, compile and build this game easily without worrying about any kind of platform specific library issue unlike open source c++ games I've tried to compile
As someone who uses both for different personal projects:
- I use zig as my build system for both rust, zig, C libraries and linking since the build system works really well for this purpose
- When I need to write applications or libraries that can benefit from compile-time code, I always try and use zigs since it's much easier to use comptime then a combination of rust macros and generics
- I like the zig async story a lot better. Or at least it's much easier to wrap my head around and write code in compared to rust + tokyo
On the other hand, sometimes I know a project will benefit from the borrow checker or I want to use some of the awesome rust crates that the community made and I'll use rust instead.
It saddens me that a proper string type is a hill the zig folks are willing to die on. The language would have _felt_ a lot better if they would have (at least) just copied what rust did with strings.
I understand the argument that in most situations a byte array might be what you actually want, but in practice it feels very dirty to be passing byte arrays around instead of expressing the underlying meaning of that byte array as a type (in this instance a String type).
Having a string type also makes any standard library functions on strings infinitely easier to discover.
Why, other languages that require unwrapping it still see plenty of people using optional. In fact, I would have more inclination to use it in my projects if that was the only way to do it.
I agree, way to many "self improvement" people will try to wake up early without defining a rigid deadline to go to sleep by. If so, it ends up being unsustainable.
I've found that I naturally get very tired by 8:30-9pm and so it works well for my schedule (and then even if I go to bed later, theirs so much leeway between 4am and the time I actually need to start working (7-8am) that I can afford to not put an alarm and always just let my body get it's natural amount of sleep even if it means getting up closer to 5 or 6 once in a while).
Is it really that hard to believe someone would do it somewhat regularly? I certainly don't do it every day, but more often then not I'll do the same kind of things in the morning (wake up around 4 - 4:30am, meditate, exercise, shower / clean, ...). It's just basic habits
The part after the schedule is weird for sure, but the schedule itself sounds fine.
I can see the argument for this triggering an eventual change, but having _both_ the chock of a CEO change _and_ 28% of the company being layed off at the same time seems unwise.