Increasing the CPU optimization by 0.02% does seem crazy to me. If you’re going to spend time working on something, make it worthwhile. Also, isn’t while(true) {print(money)} Microsoft, Apple and Amazon:s business model?
Arstechnica runs on WordPress on AWS, and they have a really nice series of articles about it. Sure, you could use just one EC2 instance for everything, but on a high traffic website you would need a bit more.
There’s a big chunk of sites that have WP running but are mostly just static content, confusingly. If you update the content once a month and disable all comments, maybe another tool could fit better there. ¯*(ツ)*/¯
I thought the same thing and tried to do a static site generator for a while, but I just liked the WordPress UI too much for composing and editing vs manually placing my images in an assets folder and remembering the file names to add them in my markdown.
Besides, with a good caching solution, isn’t WordPress effectively a static site with extra steps for many use cases?
I’ve definitely used WP in that manner as well. At that time there were plugins that would render the pages out to static HTML in object storage. I’m sure there still are, but possibly not the same ones I used.
I just prefer not to use or manage WP whenever possible.
honestly with Go in general I’m in a perpetual cycle of being annoyed with it and then immediately being amazed when I find some little trick for efficiency - with stringer interfaces and the like
Same for C, & yields a pointer to a value, and * allows you to access the data. (For rust people, a pointer is like a reference with looser type checking)
sometimes i start my iterator with = -1. As I only +=1 it with a condition and I know that it will return true on the first cycle. I’ll chuck array[iterator] and need it to be 0 to start with ofc.
I just have no idea how to not do this, but it looks so bad, i need a i8 instead of a u8 at least because of this
I could tell you my recent cenario, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere. because I know that it’s avoidable, but it’d take for me to run a different logic for only first element of my array. which is doable, but it’d make the code like 5 extra lines longer, harder to read/follow. But I just simply choose to put -1 and boom it’s fixed, just works.
another solution would be (without context) is to add one more variable and one more check to my foreach, but that takes more memory and cpu, I usually choose the i = -1, it’s ugly but not as ugly as other solutions would be
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.