giomasce · HackerTrans

قبل سنتينdiscuss

I can't know what they're doing, but it doesn't look like they're giving the lender any voting right. They're just borrowing some money and returning them in the following years. And I still can't see why this imply that the likelihood of the company failing is high.

giomasce

قبل سنتينdiscuss

They were already selling expensive seafood before, presumably with profit, why should that have changed? I imagine for a few years part or all of their profit will go to the lender while the pay back the loan. Then it's all for them again, except they're now owned by the trust instead of by the previous shareholders.

The point of having a trust is not to form capital, but to enforce a certain company governance system (as described in the legal documents with whom the trust is set up) without tying it to who happens to be the owner at any given moment.

giomasce

قبل سنتينdiscuss

Making profit is always a goal you achieve while doing something else: selling local seafood, writing software, designing chips, mining ores, whatever. So making profits and doing something else cannot be harder than just making profits. Also, companies receive and pay back loans all the time, it's quite a common procedure. Why should it be any different here?

giomasce

قبل 7 سنواتdiscuss

That is ok if you're just dealing with the upper layer of code, i.e., the final application. Then statically linking can very well be the best solution. But if you're building an operating system or distribution and do not want to recompile the whole of it (and let users download and reinstall the whole of it) each time you fix a bug in a core library, then static linking becomes pretty quickly a big pain.

More or less the same happens with C++ header-only libraries, which are basically uncompiled static libraries. They are very nice and possibly allow strong optimization, but are rather painful to handle in a distribution.

> Plus with a static binary, if you really care about order of loading/unloading etc (which you ideally shouldn't) its trivial to manage with a custom linker script.

Why? It seems to me rather sensible to deinitialize resources in the opposite order in which you initialized them. This way the time span of different resources are contained each within the other instead of just overlap. When using RAII in C++ (which is basically just atexit on a finer grain) it often makes sense to have this requirement.

comments