why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody?
it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote:
> “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”
productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.
I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it.
I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry.
> To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man
(see this quote disagrees!)
So based on the article's own observation: no, of course not. The more interesting question is "will it stand on its own?" to which the answer is "only if it actually solves so many problems with the thing it's trying to supplant that it makes sense to give it a serious try".
And C++ just... doesn't have that many real problems. It has a lot of irks, but the problems people run into are problems that others already solved, a thousand times, over the last half century, in many different ways for many different iterations of the language.
Pretending you can replace C++ is like pretending you can replace cars. Not just "create EVs" but straight up replace cars. Good luck, you won't succeed if that's your goal, so hopefully you realise you need to focus on making a decent language that some folks might consider using instead of C++ for some of their work, instead of creating "the successor to C++".
This had very little to the discussion. Of course it can't be replaced. Code is created by humans, and as long as we have opinions nothing gets truly replaced. Just decreased usage over time.
> C++ and Switft just became "more dominant".
Yup, like this. Of course a general statement is no.
I have very little interest in this topic. But I seen this SAME comment a million times on anything thats new that attempts to challenge something. And as usual whether something "dethrones" something is less interesting than what changes or ideas that it offers.
Just like ALL those you listed, they didn't replace any of those, but they definitely challenged the ecosystems, or improved the old ones.
Naunce discussion is far more interesting.
For example, why do you think Carbon won't be able to gain dominance over time? I mean I think thats a huge hurdle too.