spec VS livebook

AsyncAPI: Interested in how to define your WebSocket APIs? One of the most advanced realtime specifications is the AsyncAPI specification, which comes with various generators for code and documentation, as well as renderers for the specifications.

Our journey with FastStream started when we needed to integrate our machine learning models into a customer's Apache Kafka environment. To streamline this process, we created FastKafka using AIOKafka, AsyncAPI, and asyncio. It was our first step in making message queue management easier.

Automatic Docs: Stay ahead with automatic AsyncAPI documentation

FastStream supports in-memory testing, AsyncAPI schema generation and more... If you are interested, please support our project by giving a GH start and joining our discord server.

However, in order for the system to work effectively, there must be a common understanding between the components regarding events and their data structures. This is where AsyncAPI comes in; it helps define a contract that describes how the components communicate and behave effectively.

You can also take a look at https://www.asyncapi.com/ (a spec for asynchronous APIs). It's useful for this use case, that is, building a well structured websocket interface with pub/sub.

Sure! Next step I am working on AsyncAPI scheme generation by your application code. It's also includes a project generation from scheme, scheme web view (lika the Swagger for OpanAPI), etc. It will a much difficult than just another broker implementation...

Onboarding - Enable developers to quickly learn how to consume the exposed APIs. For example, offer OpenAPI or AsyncAPI documentation and provide a portal and sandbox.

LiveBook site

I prefer functional programming with Livebook[1] for this type of thing. Once you run a cell, it can be published right into a web component as well.

[1] - https://livebook.dev

If you're a coder, Livebook might be worth a look too. I certainly have my eyes on it.

Would highly recommend looking at Jose's use of livebook to answer these. It makes testing easier. It's old but still relevant. Video link inside

That's hard to say. Racket is a rather complete language, as is F# and Elixir. And F# and Racket are extremely capable multi-paradigm languages, supporting basically any paradigm. Elixir is a bit more restricted in terms of its paradigms, but that's a feature oftentimes, and it also makes up for it with its process framework and deep VM support from the BEAM.

I would say that the key difference is that F# and Elixir are backed by industry whereas Racket is primarily backed via academia. Thus, the incentives and goals are more aligned for F# and Elixir to be used in industrial settings.

Also, both F# and Elixir gain a lot from their host VMs in the CLR and BEAM. Overall, F# is the cleanest language of the three, as it is easy to write concise imperative, functional, or OOP code and has easy asynchronous facilities. Elixir supports macros, and although Racket's macro system is far more advanced, I don't think it really provides any measurable utility over Elixir's. I would also say that F# and Elixir's documentation is better than Racket's. Racket has a lot of documentation, but it can be a little terse at times. And Elixir definitely has the most active, vibrant, and complete ecosystem of all three languages, as well as job market.

The last thing is that F# and Elixir have extremely good notebook implementations in Polyglot Notebooks (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotne...) and Livebook (https://livebook.dev/), respectively. I would say both of these exceed the standard Python Jupyter notebook, and Racket doesn't have anything like Polyglot Notebooks or Livebook. (As an aside, it's possible for someone to implement a Racket kernel for Polyglot Notebooks, so maybe that's a good side project for me.)

So for me, over time, it has slowly whittled down to F# and Elixir being my two languages that I reach for to handle effectively any project. Racket just doesn't pull me in that direction, and I would say that Racket is a bit too locked to DrRacket. I tried doing some GUI stuff in Racket, and despite it having an already built framework, I have actually found it easier to write my own due to bugs found and the poor performance of Racket Draw.

This looks very similar to LiveBook¹. It is purely Elixir/BEAM based, but is quite polished and seems like a perfect workflow tool that is also able to expose these workflows (simply called livebooks) as web apps that some functional, non-technical person can execute on his/her own.

1: https://livebook.dev/

[2] https://github.com/livebook-dev/livebook/blob/main/lib/liveb...