The computers are fast, but you don't know it

Post by eterm » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #182

eterm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "twice as long" in any syntactic sense, and readability is easily fixed: Enumerable.Range(1,50) .Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0) .Skip(1) .Select(e => e + 1) That's very understandable, it's clear what it does, and if your complaint is that dotnet prefers to name expressions like Skip rather than magic syntax, we can disagree on what make things readable and easy to maintain.

It's literally "twice as long" syntactically. 120 vs. 67 characters. And again, you keep omitting the rest of the line. (Why?) What you should've written in response was: var y = Enumerable.Range(1,50) .Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0) .Skip(1) .Select(e => e + 1) .ToArray(); Compare: y = [t[1] for t in enumerate(range(1, 50, 4)) if t[0] % 3 == 0][2:] And (again), my complaint isn't about LINQ or numbers or these…

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

grishka wrote: post #77

marcosdumay wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only a matter of 750ms instead of 200ms. I'm astonished every time I open some tool like Visual Studio, SAP Power Designer, or Libre Office that can stay for the most part of a minute on its loading screen. What do those tools even do for that long? They can read enough data from the disk to overflow my computer's main memory a few times during it.

I remember a video of a guy running an old version of Visual C++ on an equally old version of Windows, in a VM on modern hardware, to try Windows development "the old way". It took about one frame to launch. One. Frame. By the way, Apple isn't much better. Xcode takes around 15 seconds to launch on an M1 Max. edit: probably this video https://youtu.be/j_4iTovYJtc?t=282

Post by dataflow » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

eterm wrote: post #211

dataflow wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally "twice as long" syntactically. 120 vs. 67 characters. And again, you keep omitting the rest of the line. (Why?) What you should've written in response was: var y = Enumerable.Range(1,50) .Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0) .Skip(1) .Select(e => e + 1) .ToArray(); Compare: y = [t[1] for t in enumerate(range(1, 50, 4)) if t[0] % 3 == 0][2:] And (again), my complaint isn't about LINQ or numbers or these…

The ToArray is unneccessay, it's much more idiomatic dotnet to deal with IEnumerable all the way through. The only meaningful difference in lengths is that C# doesn't have an Enumable.Range(start, stop, increment) overload but it's easy enough to write one, and then it'd be essentially the same length.

Post by pointernil » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, Jun 16, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

eterm wrote: post #165

dataflow wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree tooling makes a huge difference but I specifically said this with the understanding that you're using C# with Visual Studio. Some stuff will be easier in C#, but a lot of other stuff just isn't as easy as in Python. At the risk of setting up a strawman for people to punch down, try comparing how easy it is to do the equivalent of something like this in C#, and feel free to use as much IDE magic as you'd like:…

Here's a one liner in c# for that: Enumerable.Range(1,50).Where((x,i) => i % 4 == 0).Where(e => e % 3 == 0).Skip(1).Select(e => e+4) Okay, so you might consider that last e+4 cheating and against the spirit, but I couldn't be bothered to spend money upgrading my linqpad to support the latest .net with Enumerable.Chunk which makes taking two at a time easier for the first part. Edit: more in spirit: Enumerable.Range(1…

  var x = Enumerable.Range(1,50)
          .Where((num, index) => num % 4 == 1 && index % 3 == 0)
          .Skip(2)
          .ToArray();

  var x = Enumerable.Range(1,50)
          .Where(num => num % 12 == 1)
          .Skip(2)
          .ToArray();

  y = [t for t in range(1, 50, 4) if t % 3 == 1][2:]