It depends who you ask. In my point of view, "reference counting" is a strategy that has nothing inherently to do with memory management and can even be manual instead of automatic. GC as the name implies should involve a collector of sorts.
I would not be where I am without my involvement in OSS or other projects, mostly due to the gained experience. The "trick" about putting it on your resume is, if it's significant, to make it not sound or placed any less worthy than any other experience on there (possibly also avoiding terms like "free", "personal", etc)
Ah, good old mumble. I had contributed a patch to it a few years ago, made it sometime in 1.2.9
The community I was in all moved to discord though. Explaining new users how to use mumble was also too hard as I recall. And it didn’t have such a great user interface but I don’t remember vent/TS being super great too.
It was in fact the top personal project on my resume (though below work experience). Dunno how I can give it more attention than saying the millions of downloads and stars.
To just toss ideas I changed my resume to be experience vs projects over work vs ‘personal’ (which could be undermining if one has significant project experience), where the experiences have multiple strong points and the projects are short descriptions. Take account importance of each item to you and recency for order. Millions of downloads is a great metric (github stars lingo is ‘meh)
Assuming you have put lot of commitment or hard work in it maybe there’s more to talk about :p. I personally have personal projects I rate higher than previous employment experience so this isn’t applicable to everyone.
Speaking as someone with a decent github profile, we need to get out of the notion that github profiles are important. Anything substantial or noteworthy of interest should really be on the candidate's resume. Even personal websites are more worthwhile going through than github profiles in my opinion.
If I wanted to see the history of a file I would go to that file for more context. I agree with the author that I don't think it's useful enough to show in the front page.
I personally care about the commit log most of the time I go onto github, or the issues, or pull requests. Not that keen on navigating to files from github.
As someone that can type QWERTY and Colemak pretty equally well, I’m not convinced in my experience that alternative keyboard layouts are significantly more comfortable than QWERTY (speed aside). Comfort greatly is noticeable if you’re transcripting at high speeds frequently (typing tests) but is otherwise questionable.
Layout switchers have some bias here because they don’t type as well in QWERTY anymore or they didn’t touch type QWERTY.
> Comfort greatly is noticeable if you’re transcripting at high speeds frequently (typing tests) but is otherwise questionable.
When I'm writing something that doesn't require a lot of cognitive overhead (typically chatting online, when I may have a lot to say but it's not particularly intellectually demanding and doesn't require a lot of precision or proofreading) I can reach pretty high WPMs.
I'm not convinced that typing speed is always brain-bound outside of typing tests. If I'm telling you about my day at work I'm pretty sure I can just "stream-of-consciousness" directly through the keyboard with very little overhead, especially if I do it in my native French.
I agree with you (though perhaps speed increases become less important after a certain threshold).
I was trying to talk about comfort difference between keyboard layouts anyhow, not the speed difference.
Given the same proficiency level of QWERTY and Dvorak/Colemak, comfort difference would be more noticeable for high intensity / little breaks / long duration activity like typing tests.
Are alternative keyboard layouts significantly more comfortable for practical tasks? I’m skeptical. (Most enthusiasts already agree they aren’t really faster).
In my experience a while back when writing socket / IO code, I thought Rust was safer because standard library functions in Haskell (and other languages I experimented around with) could throw unchecked exceptions/errors.
The A version has been around as long as the AB version. For those unfamiliar, A is roughly equivalent to 1 college semester and AB was roughly equivalent to 2 college semesters, just like AP courses for other subjects.
I was a developer in various imperative/OO languages already before I took the AB course, and I still found it to be challenging.
I think for many that have never done any programming or CS, the A version course may still be decent. It does fall short under Big O, but there should also be some extra buffer time to do something else in the year outside the AP material. That depends on the quality of the instructor though.
Chemistry has just "Chemistry", good for two college semesters.
Physics has four classes! There isn't an "A" or "B" or "AB", but there is a "C"! You can choose "Physics C Mechanics" and "Physics C Electricity and Magnetism", each worth a college semester. (you can do both) Alternately you can choose "Physics 1" and "Physics 2", which are each worth a semester for non-science non-engineering majors.
Economics has both "Macroeconomics" and "Microeconomics". It's not "A" and "AB", nor is it "A" and "B".
