Facebook had started bifurcating API endpoints to support iOS vs Android vs Web, and overtime a large number of OS-specific endpoints evolved. A big part of their initial GraphQL marketing was to solve for this problem specifically.
> ... has a debug allocator that maintains memory safety in the face of use-after-free and double-free
which is probably true (in that it's not possible to violate memory safety on the debug allocator, although it's still a strong claim). But beyond that there isn't really any current marketing for Zig claiming safety, beyond a heading in an overview of "Performance and Safety: Choose Two".
It is intended for release builds. The ReleaseSafe target will keep the checks. ReleaseFast and ReleaseSmall will remove the checks, but those aren't the recommended release modes for general software. Only for when performance or size are critical.
The last iced release was September 2024, more than a year ago. I imagine they had constraints that made it impossible to wait for upstream patches to be merged (if at all) and it was simply more tenable to fork and worry about merging later.
You don't owe random strangers your time, and it's so strange to me that people feel so entitled to other peoples time. Can also be argued that it's rude to engage a person on a topic they're not interested in.
I do, to an extent, agree. But I also think it's impolite to have relationships where "we're going to talk about what I want to talk about, but when we go to talk about what you want to talk about I'm just going to pick up my laptop and ignore you or tell you I don't want to".
You could argue, in your description, the same about RMS - he might feel entitled to someone's time to talk about free software.
There is no relationship if you're never going to see these people again. My time is my most precious resource, and I'm not obligated to give it away because someone thinks their initiation of a conversation needs to be reciprocated.
RMS set boundaries and that's perfectly reasonable.
Other than a few popular libraries, I'm unaware of any major open source project that isn't primarily supported by corporate employees working on it as part of their day job.
How do you measure results until something is done? It's simply not possible to reliably measure or predict the result of something before it's done, and at best any numbers will be incredibly rough estimates.
The only thing we can control for is the act of doing.
I'm willing to wager that 99.99% of readers do not associate "Handmade" with the org you're associated with, and that most didn't know it existed until this comment. So yes "really", without OP replying, it's understandable that the poster you're replying inferred it had nothing to do with you.
Yeah, I don't think of Handmade Cities when I hear the word "handmade". I think of Handmade Network and Casey Muratori, who actually coined the term and started the movement. I didn't even know about Handmade Cities before this comment, either. This is just shameless marketing/insertion on their part.
Still doesn't change the reality that few people know of this org exists, and fewer people still will associate it with the word "Handmade" in this context.
OP said "do well", not top performer. Thinking you're a top performer isn't the same as the company thinking you're a top performer. I've never seen someone put on a PIP that didn't deserve, even if they thought differently.
Most people struggle just to keep their head above water nonetheless come up with elaborate conspiracies of sabotaging other peoples careers. No one is thinking about you that much.
I suspect the root of the problem is an unwillingness to take ownership for their action (or inaction). I've never been on a PIP. Even when I've given my employers reason to give me a verbal warning, their response has been: "that's not like you, don't let it happen again," and it hasn't happened again. I suspect that is true for most of those who have never been on a PIP.
Now I'm on the flip side, in a place where I may have to put someone on a PIP. What can be done has been done. There is only so much support and positive guidance that can be offered before you have to provide them with a plan backed with consequences for not following through. It is an employee that I don't want to lose because of their contributions, but it is also an employee that I can't afford to keep because (without changes) they are a liability. Unfortunately, previous interactions suggest that I will have to cut my losses. Yet the ball lies entirely in their court at this point because they are the one who has to take ownership for the issues they create.
reply