primitives | Radix Primitives is an open-source UI component library | User Interface library

You should stick with ref to have a reactive type and even specify it as it is pointless to make an object just for the counter. You can use const counter = ref(0) as you work with value inside you don't have to use let and when accessing in the script just use counter.value and in you HTML {{ counter }}. With ref you create a reactive primitive value meanwhile by using reactive is used for creating reactive objects and it's as a replacement for data. So just use ref as it can be used for almost everything you can even create your own types and specify them. Also when working with reactive you can't swap the complete object and it can't be used for everything on the other hand ref can only downside is .value which can be annoying but in the end, it's worth it.

With help from a user on another forum, it turns out the problem was the command:

I think this is it:

What does "when working with primitives" mean? I am always using an Array.

It's about array elements - whether they are primitives, as in an array of strings, or objects.

In short, if you have an array of objects, use . If you have and array of strings, and the array is short or you don't ever insert or remove elements in the middle of the array, use . Otherwise use . If you are not sure, always use .

The difference is how the DOM is updated when array elements are changed.

always checks if an element was in the array before the change, and moves DOM nodes to reflect the change of element position, without calling the callback to render the element (it will also invoke the index() signal if it was used in the callback to show item position, so the stuff that depends on index() will be updated in place). calls the each callback to render the changed element if the element was not previously in the array.

So, when you insert an element in the middle of the array, the each callback is called only once - to render inserted element, and its result is inserted into DOM in place in the array, as expected.

does not do that - it's much simpler, it just compares old and new elements at each index, and if they differ, it invokes the item() signal that was passed as parameter to the each callback. The callback itself will not be called, only the stuff inside the callback that depends on the item() signal will be updated in place. calls each callback only when new elements are added at the end of the array.

It's also explained in the FAQ: for , the each callback received an item value and a signal for item position. For , it's the opposite - the callback receives a signal for item value, and a number for item position.

You can try this example in the Solid playground - you can open the console to see how many times the callback is called by and :

Short answer based on Shepmaster's excellent answer to a related question: You can't. You have to make a struct and define converters to/from that new struct and the underlying type it supports (the converters won't go two steps, so two types compatible with f32 won't convert to each other directly).

For example:

Please report to Microsoft either using the people app in windows or the visual studio installer.

for now, there is only one option: use visual studio 2019. or try finding alternatives. there should be somewhere around the net

I suggest using Rider IDE instead(until the devs fix the bug):Download Rider IDE

I'm not really trying to advertise here, just suggesting an IDE Too compile and run you rprogram.

This sounds very like a problem that crops up in Haskell from time to time. The problem is one of garbage collection.

There are two ways that this can go. Firstly, the lazy list can be consumed as it is used, so that the amount of memory consumed is limited. Or, secondly, the lazy list can be evaluated in a way that it remains in memory all of the time, with one end of the list pinned in place because it is still being used - the garbage collector objects to this and spends a lot of time trying to deal with this situation.

Haskell can be as fast as C, but requires the calculation to be strict for this to be possible.

I don't entirely understand the code, but it appears to be recursively creating a longer and longer list, which is then evaluated. Do you have the tools to measure the amount of memory that the garbage collector is having to deal with, and how much time the garbage collector runs for?

Bitcoin and the coincurve library use canonical signatures while this is not true for the ecdsa library.

What does canonical signature mean?
In general, if (r,s) is a valid signature, then (r,s') := (r,-s mod n) is also a valid signature (n is the order of the base point).
A canonical signature uses the value s' = -s mod n = n - s instead of s, i.e. the signature (r, n-s), if s > n/2, s. e.g. here.

All signatures from the ecdsa library that were not been successfully validated by the coincurve library in your test program have an s > n/2 and thus are not canonical, whereas those that were successfully validated are canonical.

So the fix is simply to canonize the signature of the ecdsa library, e.g.:

CryptoJS only supports symmetric encryption and therefore not ECDSA. WebCrypto supports ECDSA, but not secp256k1.
WebCrypto has the advantage that it is supported by all major browsers. Since you can use other curves according to your comment, I will describe a solution with a curve supported by WebCrypto.
Otherwise, sjcl would also be an alternative, a pure JavaScript library that supports ECDSA and especially secp256k1, s.here.

WebCrypto is a low level API that provides the functionality you need like key generation, key export and signing. Regarding ECDSA WebCrypto supports the curves P-256 (aka secp256r1), P-384 (aka secp384r1) and p-521 (aka secp521r1). In the following I use P-256.

The following JavaScript code generates a key pair for P-256, exports the public key in X.509/SPKI format, DER encoded (so it can be sent to the Python site), and signs a message: