barely | extensible status bar to pretty display | Command Line Interface library

Just increasing memory usage does not indicate a memory leak, the Garbage collector will run according to its own rules, for example when there is not sufficient memory. If inserting a GC.Collect resolves it there was probably never a leak to begin with.

Whenever there is a potential memory problem I would recommend using a memory profiler. This should allow you to trigger GCs at will, collect snapshots of all the allocated objects, and compare them to see if some kind of object count is steadily increasing.

That said, I would suggest changing query = new StringBuilder(); to query.Clear(). No need to re-allocate a bunch of memory when you already have a buffer available.

You could perhaps further reduce allocation rate by using Span/Memory as much as possible rather than strings. This should let you refer to a specific sequence of characters within a larger buffer without doing any copying or allocation at all. This was a major reason for Span<>, since copying strings is a bit inefficient when doing lots of xml/json deserialization & html processing.

If you want to preserve structured binding and possible optimisations which comes with it, easiest way would be to put a comment denoting types. Obviously it would be bad if return types were to change: comment would become misleading. When writing types manually this would lead to a compile-time error.
To mimic this behavior, you can force a compile-time error manually:

The two methods are not equivalent. In the list comprehension you perform 1,000,000 comparisons (if i==j) while in the second one you don't have any comparisons at all.

Also [False]*1000 is a built-in shortcut and probably executes faster than a for loop.

Note that the time complexity for both methods is O(n^2), but that doesn't mean that one cannot be faster than the other.

You need to (re-)attach the event handlers after you have changed your HTML.

Solved:

Application.AskToUpdateLinks = False

The basic answer is: Because your test as written doesn't test optimized code. JavaScript engines don't generally optimize functions if they're run only once (or even just a few times). In fact, V8 (the engine in Chrome and Node.js) runs functions that only run once on startup in an interpreter, it doesn't even JIT compile them. (It turns out that it's less memory-expensive to do it that way. Functions that are used repeatedly go through JIT. More here and here.)

If you really want to benchmark things, look at a benchmarking library or suite (for instance, https://benchmarkjs.com/). But even if we're not going to use one, we want to run each variation multiple times (absolutely no fewer than 3) and take the average. If we do that, on Chrome, we see that the times of your three (and my fourth) are basically the same other than B (discussed below):

The RealFrac constraint implies both Real and Fractional. Real means that the numbers must be 1-dimensional (in contrast to, say, 2-dimensional complex numbers, or higher dimensional vectors). round requires Real, because it must map its input on the 1-dimensional set of integers. And round obviously requires Fractional, otherwise it doesn't make much sense to round. So, round requires a RealFrac as input. Changing Fractional to RealFrac is the right solution to the first error.

The second error is because you specify that your types are Integral, but then you apply the fromInteger function which expects a concrete Integer. You should change fromInteger to fromIntegral.

Then you will still get an error, because you write fromInteger 2*k, which means (fromInteger 2) * k in Haskell, but you probably meant fromInteger (2 * k) or 2 * fromInteger k. And this should also be changed to fromIntegral.

This code compiles without errors:

To fix the slow code, I just initialized the import and translate client outside the function once.

In the case of the 403 POST error, I had to create another GCP account. When I saw the quotas in the old account (trial), nothing was exceeded or close to, but the trial period apparently ended and I didn't have the free credits ($400) anymore. I tried enabling billing for the API (and checked my card wasn't defunct) but that didn't change much. Translate by batch worked in my newer account.

So, it was just an account issue rather than an API issue.

The simplest way I know is:

• read data file with: