silly | Silly is a filesystem based Object Document Mapper | File Utils library

Seems that gcvt() don't do exactly what printf() do, at least with your compiler. Check it with a "real" printf with the same value.

Since you didn't gave the numbers you used for the test (avoid getfloat() and initialize directly i1, i2, noi1 and noi2 with required constants in your question), I can't run it and tell you why exactly - or if it even happens with my own compiler.

Usually, the source code for printf is at least two times bigger than yours, so you may have missed some vicious subcases. If I remember well, printf has code to decode an IEEE-754 directly and don't rely on gcvt.

This appears to have been fixed with release of version 2.14.6

I had a similar problem with another module.

The solution I found was to update both node (to v16) and npm (to v8).

For Node, I used brew (but nvm should be OK).

For npm, I used what the official doc says :

npm install -g npm@latest

Your split splits the list in two ordered halves, so merge consumes its first argument first and then just produces the second half in full. In other words it is equivalent to ++, doing redundant comparisons on the first half which always turn out to be True.

In the true mergesort the merge actually does twice the work on random data because the two parts are not ordered.

The split though spends some work on the partitioning whereas an online bottom-up mergesort would spend no work there at all. But the built-in sort tries to detect ordered runs in the input, and apparently that extra work is not negligible.

In general, you should always cache DOM elements when they're needed later, were you using OOP or not. DOM is huge, and fetching elements continuously from it is really time-consuming. This stands for the properties of the elements too. Creating a JS variable or a property to an object is cheap, and accessing it later is lightning-fast compared to DOM queries.

Many of the properties of the elements are deep in the prototype chain, they're often getters, which might execute a lot of hidden DOM traversing, and reading specific DOM values forces layout recalculation in the middle of JS execution. All this makes DOM usage slow. Instead, create a simplified JavaScript model of the page, and store all the needed elements and values to the model whenever possible.

A big part of OOP is just keeping up states, that's the key of the model too. In the model you keep up the state of the view, and access the DOM only when you need to change the view. Such a model will prevent a lot of "layout trashing", and it allows you to bind data to elements without actually revealing it in the global namespace (ex. Map object is a great tool for this). Nothing beats good encapsulation when you've security concerns, it's an effective way ex. to prevent self-XSS. Additionally, a good model is reusable, you can use it where ever the functionality is needed, the end-user just parametrizes the model when taken into use. That way the model is almost independent from the used markup too, and can also be developed independently (see also Separation of concerns).

A caveat of storing DOM elements into object properties (or into JS variables in general) is, that it's an easy way to create memory leaks. Such model objects are usually having long life-time, and if elements are removed from the DOM, the references from the object have to be deleted as well in order to get the removed elements being garbage-collected.

In practice this means, that you've to provide methods for removing elements, and only those methods should be used to delete elements. Additionally to the element removal, the methods should update the model object, and remove all the unused element references from the object.

It's notable, that when having methods handling existing elements, and specifically when creating new elements, it's easy to create variables which are stored in closures. When such a stored variable contains references to elements, they can't be removed from the memory even with the aforementioned removing methods. The only way is to avoid creating these closures from the beginning, which might be a bit easier with OOP compared to other paradigms (by avoiding variables and creating the elements directly to the properties of the objects).

As a sidenote, document.getElementsBy* methods are the worst possible way to get references to DOM elements. The idea of the live collection of the elements sounds nice, but the way how those are implemented, ruins the good idea.

This is probably one of the cases where you need to pick one between being DRY and using enums.

Enums don't go very far as far as code reuse is concerned, in Java at least; and the main reason for this is that primary benefits of using enums are reaped in static code - I mean static as in "not dynamic"/"runtime", rather than static :). Although you can "reduce" code duplication, you can hardly do much of that without introducing dependency (yes, that applies to adding a common API/interface, extracting the implementation of asListString to a utility class). And that's still an undesirable trade-off.

Furthermore, if you must use an enum (for such reasons as built-in support for serialization, database mapping, JSON binding, or, well, because it's data enumeration, etc.), you have no choice but to duplicate method declarations to an extent, even if you can share the implementation: static methods just can't be inherited, and interface methods (of which getMessage would be one) shall need an implementation everywhere. I mean this way of being "DRY" will have many ways of being inelegant.

If I were you, I would simply make this data completely dynamic

How about testing if ... is of length 1 and if the only argument passed through is a vector? If not so, then consider ... a list of scalers and capture them with lst(...).

Thread safety does not necessarily imply being accessed by only one thread. The important aspect is that there is no concurrent access, i.e. no access by more than one thread at the same time. If the access by different threads is temporally ordered and this ordering also ensures the necessary memory visibility, which is the responsibility of the caller, it still is a thread safe usage.

The Spliterator documentation says:

Despite their obvious utility in parallel algorithms, spliterators are not expected to be thread-safe; instead, implementations of parallel algorithms using spliterators should ensure that the spliterator is only used by one thread at a time. This is generally easy to attain via serial thread-confinement, which often is a natural consequence of typical parallel algorithms that work by recursive decomposition.

The spliterator doesn’t need to be confined to the same thread throughout its lifetime, but there should be a clear handover at the caller’s side ensuring that the old thread stops using it before the new thread starts using it.

But the important takeaway is, the spliterator doesn’t need to be thread safe, hence, the iterator wrapped by a spliterator also doesn’t need to be thread safe.

Note that a typical behavior is splitting and handing over before starting traversal, but since an ordinary Iterator doesn’t support splitting, the wrapping spliterator has to iterate and buffer elements to implement splitting. Therefore, the Iterator experiences traversal by different threads (but one at a time) when the traversal has not been started from the Stream implementation’s perspective.

That said, the lines() implementation of BufferedReader is a bad example which you should not follow. Since it’s centered around a single readLine() call, it would be natural to implement Spliterator directly instead of implementing a more complicated Iterator and have it wrapped via spliteratorUnknownSize(…).

Since your example is likewise centered around a single poll() call, it’s also straight-forward to implement Spliterator directly:

You may write a NotifyPropertyChanged method that accepts multiple property names. It does not really reduce the amount of code, but at least allows to make only one method call.