datastation VS busybox-w32

There was a technique that existed already where you could use `go test -cover` and the `-o` flag to produce a binary from `go test` rather than actually running tests. So you could build a binary that had coverage enabled. Then when you ran

Here's an example: https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation/blob/main/runn....

I can't remember where I found this technique but it's been around for a while.

This new option is the same thing but a way to `go build` with `-cover` instead of `go test -cover -o $out`? Do I have that right?

If my employer doesn't consider paying for dbt cloud, I will use u/eatonphil 's datastation, run the queries on a dev database then put them in dbt.

I build a somewhat similar app, DataStation [0], that is in JavaScript and Go. It supports scripting in Python, Julia, R, JavaScript, Ruby, etc.

The server version of it exists and I run it myself but that process is not documented yet. (Most people use it as a desktop app today.)

[0] https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation

My biggest issue with Pyodide is the long wait times. I haven't figured out a way around a ~5 second load time where the entire UI hangs every single time you load the page.

My app (similar to Simon's, a lite mode of a data IDE): https://app.datastation.multiprocess.io.

My code: https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation/blob/main/shar....

I use Go heavily cross-platform developing DataStation [0] and dsq [1]. I am not an expert. And I don't have proof for it but on some rudimentary benchmarks the Linux-specific file idioms in the Go standard library definitely don't seem to translate well to even macOS let alone Windows. For example some good streaming techniques for reading large files on Linux that work really well there seemed to be pretty bad on macOS.

I think Amos has presented more proof than I can on the topic of just how Linux-influenced Go is. And I think it is fine for the majority of Go users because the majority users of Go are building server apps or Linux CLIs.

Amos has spent some time building cross-platform desktop systems with Go for itch.io and I think I'm seeing some of the same things they are in that scenario.

I think this is a reasonable article. If Amos gets flame-y at any point I think it's worth ignoring because there does seem to be something up with Go in cross-platform applications.

I like Go a lot and for most things I'd keep using it still. Just sharing some observations.

[0] https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation

[1] https://github.com/multiprocessio/dsq

I keep a page of good first projects for two big projects I work on. The only expectation is that you know Go. I've had a couple of people who've never contributed to OSS come in and get some meaningful features merged.

I've got some good first projects if you're interested in OSS data tools and have some Go experience.

Check out: https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation/blob/main/GOOD...

Some example projects: DataStation (desktop GUI for querying every kind of database, scripting and graphing the results) and dsq (a CLI companion for running SQL queries on many kinds of files), and go-json (a library for fast JSON encoding of arrays of large objects).

I'm building a desktop-first (SaaS-eventual) data IDE for developers [0]. Making a living? Not yet.

It being desktop-first makes it as easy to try out in a corporate environment as Sublime. The data never leaves your machine. Desktop-first is a big deal in devtools for this reason.

[0] https://github.com/multiprocessio/datastation

Win32 port is here: https://frippery.org/busybox/

Look into busybox for windows https://frippery.org/busybox/. Pretty bad ass even with it’s downsides of missing applets and such

Vim by itself means no supporting unix environment. It's useful to call out to powerful external tools not present by default on Windows. I fill that gap with busybox-w32. It's not a big deal once solved.

Sure, it's not necessary, but a few simple, nice tools (<600kiB for an entire suite of extended unix utilities) makes thing a whole lot simpler on a platform devoid of nice tools.

busybox-w32 includes a cal applet. If that's all you care about, you can just rename busybox.exe to cal.exe.

busybox-w32: standard unix utilities for Windows. It's a BusyBox port.

IHMO, even better is to just use POSIX sh in your Makefile and simply make it a build requirement. It's easy to obtain a reasonable sh even on Windows (Cygwin, MSYS2, busybox-w32), and to further support exactly this I include sh alongside make in my development kit distribution. This uniformity lets me hit all operating systems with the same Makefile. I use EXE from the environment to determine the binary file extension, if any.

I love unix tools (grep, sed, cut, etc.), and while there are some good sub-systems (msys2, cygwin), they might be bit heavey. For that the windows version of busybox - https://frippery.org/busybox/ - and then I make sure my scripts are not using too powerful features of said tools (grep especially), such that the version in busybox works. Great, and also possible to port some of that back to linux (but I mostly use it to build something, or extract some data but want to share the .bat file with others - one day when I get better in PowerShell I'll try there more).

I’m using this shell daily, because it also works very well on Windows out of the box, without installing Cygwin or MSYS.

The other option for Windows users for a sane, usable shell (cmd is frankly put, shit), is busybox-w32 (https://frippery.org/busybox). But then you miss out on any of the fancy autocompletion or syntax highlighting (which is what I’m primarily using nu-shell for, I haven’t even tried their structural data stuff yet and it’s already good as a Windows shell.)