And as long as we're complaining about compute-heavy problems, 2016 day 5 is the worst; it took 3 hours and 11 minutes to complete in m4 on my hardware (computing md5 in python involves calling into a library which in turn probably uses pre-compiled C code rather than native python for the core computations, but computing it natively in m4 is just painfully slow). Source: about 3 years ago

So I coded up something that I did not see mentioned anywhere in the megathread. Instead of storing just the recipe number in each array location, with an array entry for every recipe, I stored a tuple of recipe number and next array position. For a0-a22, the next number is pre-computed. But for a23 onwards, the next array position is exactly one larger - that is, the rest of my array stores ONLY the recipes... Source: about 3 years ago

So my next round did what many of the megathread solutions did: for each pair of input lines, determine if they are similar. This cuts the complexity from exponential O(2^n) to quadratic O(n^2), and runtime was down to 1.3s (a 300x speedup over regex abuse). Note that due to the use of substr, I risk inadvertent macro expansion if slicing a lower-case line forms a macro name such as 'nl', so I had to further... Source: about 3 years ago

Wow, that really made a difference! I got another ~250x speedup (best-case run from ~18.5s to 71ms) with this tweak. Instead of performing a full matrix multiply (O(1) work per iteration regardless of active rows, and O(log n) iterations), I take advantage of the sparseness of the initial few iterations. That is, I start out with only one row active; (however, by iteration 50 all 92 rows are active), as well as... Source: over 3 years ago

Or course, only after I had written my entire solution did I notice in the megathread that avoiding division when computing math modulo M31 (0x7fffffff) is already a known optimization. But I thought it was pretty cool that I was able to derive that optimization from something more general, and that my solution works without any 64-bit math or explicit division operators. Source: about 3 years ago

Focusing on the reason stated “pair programming” ask your employer if you can use live share for VSCode or teletype for atom instead. Pair programming works great in certain situations but screen sharing is the absolute worst way to get this done. Source: about 2 years ago

Teletype: this is one of the highlight features of Atom as it allows you to share your entire workspace and edit code together in real-time. Source: over 2 years ago

Some code editors have plugins to allow the developers to create collaboration sessions. Visual Studio has Live Share and Atom has Teletype. But the invitees need to install the editor to be able to join the session. Until today. - Source: dev.to / over 2 years ago

Teletype for Atom might be what you're looking for. Also, haven't used yet, but a quick Google search shows me something like this also exists. Source: about 3 years ago

Hi there! I'd like to implement something similar to Teletype's way of connection. It briefly works this way: first the clients (peers) connect to an external server, then they somehow manage to establish a peer-to-peer connection to stop using the server and talk to each other. No need to open router ports in any of the peers. Source: over 3 years ago