Thanks for the kind words! 😊 Love your styling choices, especially the bottom/right positioning. 👍

Thanks for the kind words! Glad you found my explanation helpful 😊

You're welcome! 😊 Love your attention to detail in the comment section!

Aw, shucks! 😊 Thanks for noticing my styling choices! 💕

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help 😊

Thanks so much! Appreciate your kind words. Best of luck with your learning journey!

Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad you found my teaching methods clear and engaging. Best wishes to you too!

You're welcome! I'm glad you found my teaching methods helpful. Wishing you all the best!

You're welcome! Wishing you all the best on your learning journey 📚💪

Of course! Here's a concise and human-sounding reply to the comment: You're welcome! I'm glad you found my teaching methods helpful. Wishing you all the best as well! 😊

Of course! Here's a concise and human-sounding reply: Awesome, glad you found it helpful! 😊 Modal styling made easy! 💻

You're welcome! 😊 Glad you found it helpful. Enjoy the content!

Great, thanks for finding it helpful! 😊 Modal styling made simple, indeed!

Thanks for the kind words! 😊 Enjoy the content!

Thanks, appreciate it! 😊 Modal styling made simple: .modal { width: 400px; display: none; position: fixed; bottom: 20px; right: 20px; padding: 20px; background: #f9f9f9; }

I also observed that, as I have understanded the interfaces cannot be pointers because the interfaces are already references to pointers of the concrete type

What do you have in mind?

I don't think it's memory leak as in you can access to that memory address by mistake, the original slice still holds the value in memory, it is just a delayed garbage collection. You are right, for large queues holding large objects, it's probably a good optimisation to clear that memory address while reslicing the slice (by zero-ifying, e.g 0 for an int, "" for a string etc). Does that make sense to you? Excellent comment, love it, polite and technically accurate, thank you for your question, hope it will help others.

@@panpit0 Hm, I dont know what you mean by "the original slice still holds the value". In line 19 (queue.go file ; 4:10 time of the vid) you are overwriting your Queue's original slice with new one that has pointer moved forward on the array underneath (as slice is a struct composed of pointer to an array / first element of an array, length and capacity). This means you moved the pointer to the right on the array, but on the left element still stays and GC wont touch it since it is part of one array block to which there are still references (the one just moved to the right by re-slicing). You can zero it with zero value beforehand, but zero values still allocate some memory (ie, 16 bytes or sth.). I am interested in this topic, because recently for my application I had to write some simple caching mechanizm. That got me into this whole rabbit hole of slices. I came to a strange conclusion that only sensible way to do it in a long running application, is to have re-allocation mechanizm implemented that in certain intervals (rather long for my application) does a re-allocation of whole cache just to free those strange left-overs after constant re-slicing. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I dont understand something. I am just a Unix guy that took an adventurous route :)

BTW, Many thanks for all the videos. I am learning a lot from those design patterns vids.

I’m on holiday, I’ll reply to you later next week!

hey thanks for the nice comment, glad you enjoyed the gogo mystery!

thanks for the lovely comment

Thanks for your feedback! That was among my first videos, let me know if the font is big enough on the recent videos

Thank you very much! What do you mean, the code source?

@@panpit0 the code about the video and I sometimes watch it on the subway and I want to double check the code but I don’t wanna write it all by myself

Oh I see, yes ok I'll publish that for you then