|
Kent Sharkey wrote: It was (sadly, was[^]) triangular, which I think explains the angles on those shots and why it looked 2D from some angles.
Ahhh...ok...that explains it. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Wow ... just wondering if anyone tried to taste it ... 
|
|
|
|
|
At least one person has licked it. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
oh no ... curiosity was stronger than self-preservation ...
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: this isn't really a 'monolith'
That depends rather on the cook. My wife, for example, would render it quite indistinguishable...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I counted 8 layers, so octabiscuit? Or more likely, 24-biscuit.
Re. eaten, around here, and I suspect there, the raccoons would probably have at it, and birds. Squirrels if they smelled seeds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you consider to post it as a proper article (serie) or a project here in the site?
You could do an introductory explanation and then link your githubs and so on. The lounge has a lot of activity and this post will get lost in the next pages pretty soon. These days are a bit of an exception as low activity.
If you consider the idea you might get help in: Article Writing Discussion Boards[^] or asking @Sean-Ewington
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing.
Writing it up as an article would be brilliant.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I've done a few here on Code Project: [^]
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
You'd think that an article that flies right in the face of modern coding practices (and almost directly insults people that would disagree with its position) would perform far worse in terms of score than an article that merely extends a given framework without taking any code-related religious positions.
Even after 20 years, CP members whims continue to baffle the shit outa me...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 26-Dec-20 12:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda like my ex; fickle, moody,...
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Order and chaos. There are enough people who can't keep order, even if their life depends on it. They are always struggling against their own chaos, but also are proud of their improvisations. Sometimes even rightfully so, but most of the time it's just too chaotic.
Then there are those who try to follow every rule fanatically, no matter where they come from or even contradict themselves. Those people are too rigid to ever stray off the beaten path. In the most extreme cases you get cargo cult programmers, who must include everything they have ever heard of without any understanding. Then we may even go full circle and get chaos by zealous order.
Trying something new is nothing bad, nor is insisting on not just improvising all the way. Striking the right balance is the hard part. Forgive those who have not found it yet. And try not to slide off to any side yourself.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Trying something new is nothing bad, nor is insisting on not just improvising all the way. Striking the right balance is the hard part. Forgive those who have not found it yet. And try not to slide off to any side yourself.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
Not only have you lived with those Zen masters, you've learned from them. 
|
|
|
|
|
What has surprised you ? or is my question another surprise?
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean. I have seen a surprising amount of that lately.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Which article of yours are you referring to? I am interested to read.
Every approach has its own pros and cons. Sad to say most readers stick to the commonly used practice and not see another approach with its own merits. For the next few months, I am going to write a very simple C++ JSON library/article with its own controversial design choice. Hopefully, few readers can see it simply for what it is. The rest of C++ world can continue to use their performant but convoluted JSON libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe he was referring to this article[^], which is scoring fairly well now but which had several "too chickenshit to comment" downvotes yesterday. All but one have disappeared, either removed by the admins or by several subsequent upvotes, which have the ability to purge outlier downvotes.
His other allusion, to "an article that flies right in the face of modern coding practices (and almost directly insults people that would disagree with its position)" could refer to one of my iconoclastic screeds. However, he uses the phrase "sucks donkey balls" and disses faddish development processes in this article[^], so he might be referring to that!
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: owever, he uses the phrase "sucks donkey balls" and disses faddish development processes
I'm a truth teller. 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Read 1231388 nodes and 20383269 characters in 1069.479000 ms at 17.765660MB/s
Skipped 1231388 nodes and 20383269 characters in 534.699000 ms at 35.534011MB/s
utf8 scanned 20383269 characters in 377.561000 ms at 50.322994MB/s
raw ascii i/o 20383269 characters in 62.034000 ms at 306.283651MB/s
raw ascii block i/o 19 blocks in 49.023000 ms at 387.573180MB/s
The first line is full JSON parsing
The second line is JSON "skipping" - a minimal read where it doesn't normalize anything it just moves as fast as possible through the document.
The third line is ut8 reading through my input source class but without doing anything JSON related
The fourth line is calling fgetc() in a loop
The fifth line is falling fread() in a loop and then scanning over the characters in each block (so i'm not totally cheating by not examining characters)
The issue here is the difference between my third line and the fourth line (utf8 scan vs fgetc). The trouble is even when I removed the encoding it made no measurable difference in speed. Underneath everything both are using fgetc. Even when I changed mine to block read using fread() it didn't speed things up.
I'm at a loss. I'm not asking a question here, mostly just expressing frustration because i have not a clue how to optimize this.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
What does "utf8 scan" actually do? Perhaps you can use some of the UTF-8 tricks used by simdjson.
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually what I'm going to do is look into simd eventually but it's not the utf8 encoding that is the issue. I turned it off and got a similar result.
There's something about the way my LexSource class is dealing with I/O, and/or I'm examining the codepoints/characers i get back way too many times.
I'm not sure which yet or if it's both.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
The real question here is whether the code meets the performance bar. If it does, why bother optimising further? Life is too short...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
