bash_kernel VS livebook

For those who don't know, Jupyter has a bash kernel: https://github.com/takluyver/bash_kernel

And you can run Jupyter notebooks from the CLI with Ploomber: https://github.com/ploomber/ploomber

Something like this? https://github.com/takluyver/bash_kernel

I wrote a Crystal kernel for Jupyter, just a modified bash_kernel, 140 lines of code, but it was tiring because I don't have enough Python ability. icrystal is the widely used Jupyter kernel for Crystal, which uses ICR . On the other hand, this crystal_kernel uses the official crystal interpreter.

Thank you! One of my main goals was making data processing in the command-line more accessible and intuitive. If you use a shell you can leverage an extensive array of tools. please take a look at the recipes in the Readme. The shell is many times underrated for data processing!

Right now you can use it in Jupiter Notebooks using a shell kernel like: https://github.com/takluyver/bash_kernel

On the mid-term, developing a spyql kernel is appealing because of syntax highlighting, code autocompleting, and more. But unless several people show interest on this, I should tackle other features first.

I recently learned of jupyter+bash and it seemed like a step toward rundeck.

To get started you need a running instance of Livebook

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/