The value of the I’m hoping for is [3,3,0], the one I have is [2,3,0]. This feature is used almost everywhere in the existing code (where the components appeared only once thus not triggering the bug). I could obviously write a function with a loop to get the desired issue, but I’m afraid that will make the code much slower and slightly less clear. Is there a better way to go?

For-loops are fast in Julia! Don’t shy away from using them.

julia> function increment!(vector, components, Δ)
for (c, δ) in zip(components, Δ)
vector[c] += δ
end
end
increment! (generic function with 1 method)
julia> using BenchmarkTools
julia> @btime increment!($vector, $components, $increment)
15.515 ns (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

It sounds like you may be translating an existing “vectorized” code from some other language like Matlab or Python? You may not get much benefit from Julia unless you write in a completely different style.

For finite-volume/finite-difference algorithms, my feeling is that a simple loop is typically the clearest as well as the fastest method — just loop over your grid, and apply your stencil each point, e.g. u[i,j] += c[i,j] * (u[i+1,j] + u[i-1,j] + u[i,j+1] + u[i,j-1] - 4u[i,j]) for a diffusion-like equation. Use ghost cells for boundary conditions.

indeed I’m writing code for a nonlinear finite volume scheme and came to Julia to benefit from the automatic differentiation (implicit euler+nonlinear = painful jacobian+newton’s method). I used to use Matlab before, I’ll try to rewrite my code using loops to compare the performances (but not today, today I’ll simply enjoy my now working module for some test cases )

Thanks a lot for the input, it is really nice to be welcomed by such a helpful community