watchexec VS hyperfine

Hi, I am using Watchexec (https://github.com/watchexec/watchexec/releases) to monitor folder changes, but I want to exclude some folders. What parameter should I use to perform the route exclusions?

Use https://github.com/watchexec/watchexec

There's something similar to this called watchexec, which you can have a look at https://github.com/watchexec/watchexec

Or use watchexec which will do 95% of what you need and you're not tied to nodejs.

watchexec

I use watchexec to automatically run the code when saved, you should customise this to your liking.

OTOH PowerShell will not keep watching and is one of the requirements. In the past I've successfully used watchexecrepo and inotifywaitrepo.

I prefer watchexec as it's cross-platform.

> On the flip side (making things more random as opposed to less), something that randomizes the initial stack pointer would be nice, as I've sometimes seen this go really, really wrong (renaming a binary from foo to foo_new made it run >1% slower!).

This is something we do already. We set a `HYPERFINE_RANDOMIZED_ENVIRONMENT_OFFSET` environment variable with a random-length value: https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine/blob/87d77c861f1b6c761a...

One rarely mentioned tool I absolutely love is hyperfine: https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

It’s a benchmarking CLI tool that can be used as an alternative to `time`. I often use it to detect flacky tests, I run something like `hyperfine —show-output -n=100 'go test ./… -count=1' and it helps me catch tests that fail unreliably

Hope that preliminary benchmarks listed in the README.md could be implemented in a proof-of-concept scheme rewarding functions returning the correct variable within a blockchain.

https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

Dasel MIT License Copyright (c) 2020 Tom Wright

Check out the official hyperfine Github repo

And then I used hyperfine to run the benchmarks on my MacBook Pro 14 M2 Max, and here are the results:

Search "benchmarking tools for linux" and decide that hyperfine is good for what I'm doing. Run Jennifer's new python script against my refactored perl and find that the python is 1.26 times faster for k=3 and 1.47 times faster for k=4. For the Covid-19 sequence, these are both on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.