radix | Radix is a full-featured Redis client for Go

The idea of the radix function is that you give it a number and it creates a Radix from it. But not every number constitutes a valid Radix. For example, if you give it -5, it shouldn't work. And neither should 0 or 1 for example. For some technical reasons, radices above 32 are also deemed invalid.

So that's why it returns Maybe: it would be Nothing in case the number you gave it wasn't a "valid" radix.

And the use case for that function is when you don't actually know the number ahead of time. Like if you get it from the user. Or from some sort of config file or whatnot. In that case, if you get a Nothing, you would interpret that as "invalid user input" or "corrupted config file" and report an error accordingly. And you won't even get as far as calling toStringAs. This is one of the big selling points of static types: applied properly, they can force you to write a correct, reliable program, without ignoring edge cases.

However, in case you already know that you're interested in decimal radix, just use decimal. It's a Maybe-free constant provided by the library, along with some other frequently used ones, such as binary and octal.

The problem with your code is that you do not use SortKeys correctly. SortKeys does not work in-place. You need to provide a separate output buffer for the sorted data.

Both codes return hex encoded as private key

Q : "Is it possible _{( to implement PRAM CRCW on consumer processor )} ?"

A :
Let's clarify the facts first. We can agree on what "consumer"-processors are - the most often a COTS term is right this - a Custom-Over-The-Shelf processor, as anyone can go and buy. So is the set of properties of any such COTS hardware, being pre-defined by the silicon structures pre-fabricated "inside" such processor.

On the contrary, the CRCW PRAM term is knowingly & intentionally a highly abstract, ultimately idealised property of any such processor architecture, that can (without having any limits in time or other compromises) Concurrently Read (under any and all levels of parallelism) and also Concurrently Write (under any and all levels of parallelism) from/into any memory location ("address") all at once, adding some additional créme-a-la-créme property, like to performe a sum of all CW-s, before actually storing a such resulting value. Any such physical implementation of these abstract properties, that meets them all under any circumstances, having no exceptions to doing so in full parallel-mode, can be called a CRCW PRAM and never otherwise.

This said, the CRCW PRAM architecture is by far not met, not even being anywhere close to it, in any of the current COTS processor hardware silicon.

Such question is leading, by definition, to actually unachievable wish to have an architecture-A get "implemented" by using an architecture-B (which can never be turned into meeting an architecture-A, even if composing many such COTS processors (as defined) into some interconnected macro-structure, which may turn some of the COTS hardware properties a bit "closer" to the CRCW PRAM, yet at such devastatingly adverse costs or slowness of operations, that such attempts can result but in something ultra-expensive + ultra-power-inefficient + ultra-slow ( being about N^{2 ~ 3} sub-sampled and having a need to artificially "wait" for all the slowest parts for a full-width of the parallelism to get physically completed, if viewed from the macro-structure point of view).

Using any amount of superscalar, M-way pipelined, out of order executing CISC silicon for achieving a macro-structure topological trick just for simulating a "slowed down" CRCW PRAM is IMHO technically not a right way to go ( if we want to enjoy a reasonably practical O( k )-sorting machine ).

If using a current level of QPU processors, we may "somehow" enjoy a constant time QUBO (a single hardware-instruction quantum processor in the current line of the D-WAVE systems' machines ), I would hesitate to consider this corner-case (topologically setup to bear "inital" state and letting The Nature ( the laws of physics ) to "execute" a quantum-annealing "algorithm" to result in a statistical-distribution of results, answering the problem solution in constant time ) a COTS, which it is not, is it?

All Javascript strings will have double quotes at the beginning when printed. Hence, the problem isn't that there is a double quote printed at the start of your console log output. Rather, the issue is that there isn't a double quote printed at the end of your logged string. In fact, the end double quote is indeed printed at the end of your logged string, but is prefixed by a long string of undefined characters, which might explain why you might have missed it:

The underlying issue is because you are iterating through the individual characters of the string in

There are two issues with your code:

1. This: if check_name == coins_list: will always return false, since check_name is a string and coins_list is a list. You want if check_name in coins_list:.
2. baseurl isn't defined in the code snippet. Change it to url.

Perform both these changes, and you should have a nonempty output in your text file. The URLs in this file appear to be well-formed.

Byte.parseByte(str, 16) expects signed input. You can write Byte.parseByte("-1", 16), for example, because -1 fits into Java byte type, but not Byte.parseByte("80", 16), because 128 does not fit into Java byte type.

You can replace Byte.parseByte(str.substring(index, index + 2), 16) with (byte) Integer.parseInt(str.substring(index, index + 2), 16) and it'll work fine.

If you're using Java 17, you can use java.util.HexFormat.of().parseHex(hexString) instead of getByte(hexString).

this in the arrow function is not the number. Use a function expression and put the original Number.prototype.toString in a variable and use that.

Your env is python3 and pip on mac is python2. I think. Try and use pip3 for the install or run your env in python2. Might be using different python verions.