On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 13:36:59 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Arrays (or in physics-speak, matrices)
>> multiplied together quite intuitively as:
>> C = A*B gives an element-by-element multiplication of A and B, assuming A and B are the same size.
>
> Ehhh?

The same true for ndslice. ndslice returns lazy result.

http://docs.algorithm.dlang.io/latest/mir_ndslice_slice.html#.Slice.opBinary.2

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 13:09:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> Ouch! I had an experience like that once.
>
> I worked at a company that bought a one-man show's company who had an impressive load-balancing software we wanted to incorporate in our system.
>
> About 1-2 years into him working at our company, one of our developers tested it using webbench (all testing had been done by this guy previously), and was getting terrible numbers. But his tests always showed really good numbers.
>
> Turns out he was "timing" his benchmarks by starting a separate thread, then sleeping for 1 second, and then measuring how many requests he handled in that "1 second". But of course, the system was super-loaded, so the sleep was going way longer than 1 second, and his numbers looked great! After we fixed it, the numbers looked horrific and matched webbench.
>
> When this was found out, we kind of moved away from that software, as we were moving our focus to hardware. I can't imagine how that must have felt, though.
>
> -Steve

This is just plain negligence on upper management's part. I can't believe they got that far without doing due diligence to verify his results.

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 16:31:07 UTC, Meta wrote:
>
> This is just plain negligence on upper management's part. I can't believe they got that far without doing due diligence to verify his results.

Of course you're supposed to perform due diligence before buying something. Not 1-2 years after...

On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 09:06:01 UTC, qznc wrote:
> Dijkstra made a good argument for zero-based:
> https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html

Donald Knuth on that proposal ;-)

Edsger Dijkstra's Retirement Banquet - Part 8 of 13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gH4bWuMUEs&t=1m23s

Good read, and totally agree there's no point in trying to convince programmers to use a new tool other than their own choice. C++ evangelists should read this.

On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 01:36:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/15/2017 5:26 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> 1-based array indexing...  I don't know, but I've become so accustomed
>> to 0-based indexing that I doubt I'll ever be able to get used to a
>> language with 1-based indexing.  Or whether D will ever be able to
>> challenge Fortran in this respect. :P
>
> I don't want to even try 1 based. All my learned behaviors with arrays would just produce corrupt code.
>
> It's why I don't dare try driving in England.

We are all stuck with 0-based and I don't think I could easily change either or that it would be worth it... But I do think 1-based would have been superior, if we could go way back in time.

Dennis Ritchie did only two things wrong: placing the * at the wrong side in pointer declarations; and making arrays as unsafe, raw pointers -- and in consequence providing two redundant ways to do one same thing: &arr[2] or arr+2

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 at 13:42:04 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
> Dennis Ritchie did only two things wrong: placing the * at the wrong side in pointer declarations; and making arrays as unsafe, raw pointers -- and in consequence providing two redundant ways to do one same thing: &arr[2] or arr+2


You missed one :)
&2[arr]

Also: https://losc.ligo.org/software/

On Monday, 16 October 2017 at 05:09:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Haha, incidentally, I've just moved to LA, and I'm failing to convince myself I won't die if I try and drive here ;) .. I'm still chickening out.

Someone once said, that the biggest problem with Fortran, is that people actually use it.

Perhaps the same can be said for L.A ;-)