Wow @Benny121221, what an interesting idea! And clean implementation (considering the tick system is a little clunky). Thanks for this!

I'd like to add a title, vertical axis label, and horizontal axis label to the demo to make the use case more obvious. What do you think a good labels would be to communicate when this would be used in practice? Memory addresses come to mind, but perhaps those would go on the horizontal axis, so I'm interested in your thoughts about what would make a good demo use case.

I think a good demo would be stacked bar-plots to show memory usage (e.g. 0x40000000 to 0x400F0000 are allocated to process A, 0x40100000 to 0x50000000 are for process B, etc.

I admit my demo was a little lazy and unimaginative, seeing as I just drew a straight line.

I think a good demo would be stacked bar-plots to show memory usage (e.g. 0x40000000 to 0x400F0000 are allocated to process A, 0x40100000 to 0x50000000 are for process B, etc.

I admit my demo was a little lazy and unimaginative, seeing as I just drew a straight line.

Sounds good to me! I'll let you update the demo to reflect the multi-process memory idea, then let me know when you think this PR is done and ready to merge

The demo isn't quite as neat as I thought it would be, I think partly because the tick system favours nice numbers in base 10, not in base 16. I don't think this is really worth fixing, especially as there aren't really any nice numbers in base 16 other than full bytes. I expect anyone who was so nitpicky would label the axis themselves anyways.

I think this is all that's needed for this PR, so feel free to merge

I'm about to merge this in, 2 thoughts though.

• Should we throw if the base is >16? char[] symbols = "0123456789ABCDEF".ToCharArray(); makes me think it would crash anyway, so maybe we should make it crash up-front with a descriptive exception message
• Negative values always show as 0. Is this intentional?

• Should we throw if the base is >16?

Yeah we probably should.

• Negative values always show as 0. Is this intentional?

No that is not intentional, good catch. I should have included tests with negative values. This does raise a problem as some bases (binary) have multiple ways of writing negatives (one's complement, two's complement, sign and magnitude, etc). I think showing that would be confusing and harmful, so I think it makes the most sense to prepend a negative sign.