datastation VS julia

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

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...