Readit News> Well, dear reader, this padding is added because the CPU needs memory to be aligned in sets of 4 bytes because it’s optimized in that fashion.
> ...
> Remember: since structs are aligned to 4 bytes, any padding is therefore unnecessary if the size of the struct is a multiple of 4 without the padding.
Individual data types have their own alignment (e.g., `bool`/`char` may be 1, `short` may be 2, `int` may be 4, `long` may be 8, etc.), and the alignment of a compound type (like a struct) defaults to the maximum alignment of its constituent types.
In this article, `struct Monster` has an alignment of 4 because `int` and `float` have an alignment of 4 for the author's configuration. Expanding one of the `int`s to a `long` could increase the alignment to 8 on some CPUs, and removing the `int` and `float` fields would decrease the alignment to 1 for most CPUs.
But if you have the same 500MB of node_modules in each of your dozen projects, this might actually durably save some space.
I'm not sure if this is what you intended, but just to be sure: writing changes to a cloned file doesn't immediately duplicate the entire file again in order to write those changes — they're actually written out-of-line, and the identical blocks are only stored once. From [the docs](^1) posted in a sibling comment:
> Modifications to the data are written elsewhere, and both files continue to share the unmodified blocks. You can use this behavior, for example, to reduce storage space required for document revisions and copies. The figure below shows a file named “My file” and its copy “My file copy” that have two blocks in common and one block that varies between them. On file systems like HFS Plus, they’d each need three on-disk blocks, but on an Apple File System volume, the two common blocks are shared.
[^1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/file_sy...
They've supported Windows and iPad for years, too.
Interesting - I assume any code that's not licensed as "free to use for whatever purpose I want"
But also, native splits/panes and tabs cover 90% of what I really want from a multiplexer, so it's easier for me personally to stick with familiar behavior than to integrate another tool into my workflow just to recreate it.
Unfortunately, it's missing one key feature that keeps me from using it as a daily-driver: it doesn't appear to be possible to attach to an existing session by automatically creating a new tab or pane. iTerm2 has fantastic integration with tmux that allows it to directly create a new tmux tab for every native iTerm2 split or tab, and I was hoping to recreate that with Zellij, outside of iTerm2.
It _is_ possible to open a new tab with the `new-tab` action (or whatever it's called), but unfortunately, there's no way to do that "in the background": one of your open sessions always switches to that new tab when it opens. I don't know if this is a limitation of the session/tab system, but when I dug through the source, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why this was happening.
I did spend some time trying to contribute a flag to allow attaching to existing sessions with a new tab/pane, but the actual architecture in place back then made this very difficult to support without non-trivial refactoring (and at least at the time, Zellij wasn't accepting any major contributions that weren't directly aligned with the roadmap, which I respect: there's only enough time in the day to review random PRs).
I check back periodically; if this is made possible at some point, I'd love to switch to it.
Just the other day I was trying to sort a large array of strings in Swift and it was painfully slow. A 3 lines Python script managed to sort the same dataset _at least_ 10x faster.
In languages such as OCaml, Haskell and Rust this of course works as you say.