|
Common sense is so uncommon!
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
See my sig:
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I knew I saw something similar somewhere but my super power is forgetfulness. 
I'm not sure how many cookies it makes to be happy, but so far it's not 27.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: What is wrong with people?
Well, apart from the plain stupid you mean?
It's quite clear to me that this epidemic is disproportionally affecting poor people, and that's not just because they're stupid, (well some obviously are), but rather because they have "essential" jobs that they cannot afford staying home from. Especially in some countries where sick pay isn't enforced, which makes it a double whammy in this case.
I don't think real estate agents are essential in any way, but I do believe they have provision based salary.
I also believe there is a lot you need to do in person as a real estate agent, so I guess their "common sense" get quite blunted after a while.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: From all the ones having it in my known people, almost none of them are the "anti-rules" or "anti-waxxers" or similars...
Honestly, how many of those do you know?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
People don't following the voluntary (lockdown is forced so it is another thing) social distancing in Spain... around 20
In Germany around 20 too
Anti Vaxxers in spain... no numbers
In Germany 5 (not only Covid related vaccines, normal ones too and they have kids  )
Some even went to the demonstrations and all of them are (still) healthy.
Infected people I would say around 30 to 40 people in Spain (3 of them ended in death) and 5 in Germany (low to mid severity)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny really. I don't know any antivaxxers at all.
I also don't know anyone that's been sick either. Apparently some temp worker at my wife's job had it in the spring, and a teacher at my sons school, otherwise it's just Griff.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
I have a couple of friends, in their thirties, regular runners and healthy... who can no longer climb the stairs to the second floor.
When a vaccine will be distributed in Italy I will do all I can, legal or barely, to have me and my wife vaccinated ASAP - especially because her company does not let her do smartworking, despite being completely possible and her having to travel 50 km on public transportation in one way and then again back.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure if you realize it, but IMO you're doing a great service to the community at large making these posts. Nothing alarming. Not trying to scare anyone. Letting the reader make up his own mind just by stating the facts as they are, coming from someone who's been there (or rather, smack in the middle of it and still having to deal with it).
If this convinces one anti-vaxxer to go for it if s/he's lucky enough to get it...it was probably worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brandish an ancient weapon at the bard (11)
// TODO: Insert something here
|
|
|
|
|
SHAKESPEARE - the bard
brandish - SHAKE
ancient weapon - SPEAR(E)
|
|
|
|
|
Well done
Tag, you're it tomorrow.
// TODO: Insert something here
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Definitely a lot easier than yesterdays. That had me completely foxed! 
|
|
|
|
|
I have to convert a recursive traversal to an iterative one. 
My poor ESP32 can't handle the stack my JSON reader is generating. I have an optimization for skipping entire subtrees wihout actually parsing everything therein. The problem is it calls skipObjectPart() which may call skipArrayPart() which may call skipObjectPart(). Here I thought I was already ahead because it doesn't use stack in cases like { "foo": { "bar": {} } } only on the edge conditions where you're transitioning from a nested array to a nested object and vice versa like { "foo": [ { "bar": {} } ] } but even with that optimization it takes too much stack on my test document (about 120kB of highly nested JSON data)
So now I need to figure out how to do the whole thing iteratively
I do not like having to eliminate recursion. I guess this is what I get for porting from C# code to an embedded device.
It just occurred to me that I could eliminate the recursion entirely and easily by not distinguishing between {} and []. I would expect the document to be balanced in terms of left right brackets but i could ignore what the actual brackets are. That would lead to things like accepting { foo: [} ] but I think I might be able to get away that. Consider what a bad document looks like. If it's corrupt, how likely is it to be corrupt but still balanced in terms of general left and right brackets? Do you think this is an acceptable optimization for a tiny device who is reading data that 99% of the time will be machine generated? I've seen some pretty nefarious hacks to get big data to run on small systems, and this is one such situation. I'm flexible.
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 8-Dec-20 22:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
When it has to be done, it has to be done. I had to do the same thing with QuadTree traversal, because recursive procedures were much too slow.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Too slow? How can that possibly be?
Until yesterday I would have come with my old and evil ways, but now I'm a reborn wraith (*) and must tell you that the compiler is far better than you at taking care of such things. Stacks are social constructs now, so you can easily ignore it. Then you can easily ignore it. It's size is now irrelevant and the calling overhead in recursive methods is also gone. Maybe it will help if your classes identify as iterative? Try to set the [iterative] attribute.
(*) No, I'm not.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say it would be difficult to get the number of brackets matching and being wrong, but not hugely unlikely, as they share a key, so manually editing could introduce that issue.
You have to ask yourself two questions:
1. What would the issue be if that error is ignored?
2. How difficult would it be to add the checking (possibly at a different pipeline stage) i.e. by pushing a boolean onto a stack when getting a [{ and pulling and checking when getting a ]}?
I would probably try and check it, but I do not know the answer to 1. and do not know how close to the hardware/timing limit adding this check would take you. Also it could be overkill for parsing something that is machine generated.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
1. I'm not sure in the specific since this is a json reader and it depends on what kind of data they're using it for. It would mean practically at least in the abstract that it would accept invalid documents. The way they're invalid is so contrived though that I can't think of what that would even look like for the reader. It basically means it works kind of like overlapping tags do in old HTML except this overlaps your "array" data with your "object" data
2. It's a very finite memory issue. The problem is this JSON reader is designed to parse data of any length and any degree of nesting. That works when you have gobs of RAM like in .NET on a modern laptop but it's much different when you're doing everything on the stack and that stack is small on a 520kB ram TOTAL machine. Worse, I have no idea how much memory I'd need. And the icing on that fail cake is you get no warning when you're out of stack. Your machine reboots.  This to me seems like a worse problem than accepting potentially invalid documents, now that I think about it. What do you think?
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I would allow ignoring potentially invalid documents.
You are not trying to validate the document, but to read it. Applying the robustness rule works here (Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.)
BTW, thanks for sharing these projects you are working on, they are fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that '{' and '[' introduce different types of entities. '{' should be followed by <propertyname>':' <value> [',' <propertyname>':' <value>]... '}' whereas '[' should be followed by <value>[',' <value> ']' (where 'x' represents a literal x). To disambiguate, you'd have to see if the first two tokens after the '{' | '[' are <propertyname>':' rather than just parsing the first token after '{' | '[' which can be ambiguous (JSON accepts a quoted string as a <value> and as a <propertyname>).
|
|
|
|
|
My JSON reader (in C# of course) is not recursive, it keeps a Stack of incomplete Objects as it reads.
It Pushes a new Object onto the Stack when it finds a { or [ .
It Pops the top Object off the Stack when it finds a } or ] .
But, looking at the code now, I see that it doesn't verify that they match -- only that they balance.
I wrote it in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
|
Underneath, I use a pull parser, which doesn't keep a stack either - it uses a state machine and forces the user of it to keep track of where they are. However, it recurses when it skips over (partial parsing). I could have made that use a stack but it would have been actually a bit harder to port to my arduino stuff. In the arduino version I use neither - I just keep a depth count, and i don't check if { [ ] } match, only that they balance, like you do.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: forces the user of it to keep track of where they are
Yes, that's at the next lower layer, an iterator which simply returns each piece of the JSON -- { , } , [ , ] , or a named value.
honey the codewitch wrote: it recurses when it skips over (partial parsing)
Mine copies it all into the Object. Then, when the Object is complete, it can "filter out" any parts which the application doesn't want (if requested) before returning it.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, see, there we have a fundamentally different design.
My C# library has a low level pull based parser. This examines small windows of near infinite size documents. You move through it an element at a time in a loop, like Microsoft's XmlTextReader.** The pull parser is fast. Calling Read() is fast, but calling SkipSubtree() is significantly faster than reading through it because i do a partial parse - just enough to make sure the document is valid - i don't normalize.
In that parse is also ParseSubtree() which takes the section of the document you are on and puts it into an in-memory tree for you, which you can then do stuff like jsonpath filtering and navigation expressions or in place modification on.
Usually, you'll just parse an entire document into a tree and work with that, but for huge documents that's not practical, so you use the pull parser to navigate/skip to where you need to be, and then just load that subset you need rather than the whole document.
In my port to Arduino, I don't have the in memory trees, just the pull parser, but I may add the ability to do small in memory trees later. Everything else is pretty much the same except the functions are camelCase.
** Pull parsers are actually fantastic for embedded stuff because they allow you to process very large documents a bit at a time.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
