git-from-the-bottom-up VS papers-we-love

Here's a great walk through for how Git works from the bottom up: https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/

It's short, easy to understand and you'll understand HEAD.

Very tangential:

Gerrit also stores some of its configs in a git repo. I was setting up a new instance, but couldn't get Admin permissions because the way my auth front-end didn't play well with the docker image's assumptions.

Gerrit already does a lot of its work via non-standard references. For example, you don't push to a branch, `refs/branches/foo`, you push to a separate `refs/for/foo` namespace that creates the review.

Similarly, Group config is stored in the All-Users git repo [1], but in references created after a UUID, in `refs/groups/UU/UUID`.

I ended up having a to exercise the plumbiest of plumbing commands [2] to create a new commit from scratch (from a tree, from the index, from blobs), to update the group ref to add myself to the Administrators group (this, of course, requires a local shell and permissions on the Gerrit host). It was a great way to exercise what I had learned in Git from the Bottom Up [3]

[1] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-...

[2] https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Internals-Git-Objects

[3] https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/

I found Git from the Bottom Up helpful. It is very short as well. Then refer to the official book when you want more detail.

I recently came across "Git from the Bottom Up by John Wiegley" (thanks to Coding Blocks podcast), he has a chapter about rebasing: https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/1-Repository/7-branching-and-the-power-of-rebase.html

You won't have to put your entire life on break in order to understand the fundamentals of git and why it works the way it works. Going through https://jwiegley.github.io/git-from-the-bottom-up/ and really understanding the material will take you a couple of hours at max, but will save you a lot of time in the future.

Wanting to understand things before using them is hardly elitism, not sure why you would think that.

Just like you probably don't want to fix bugs without understand the cause, it's hard to use a tool correctly unless you know how the tool works.

Papers We Love (PWL) is a community built around reading, discussing and learning more about academic computer science papers. This repository serves as a directory of some of the best papers the community can find, bringing together documents scattered across the web. You can also visit the Papers We Love site for more info.

You might find the paper Out of the Tar Pit interesting if you haven't already read it: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...

The ideas and approaches you talk about evoked some of the concepts from that paper for me. It talks a lot about separating accidental complexity and infrastructure so you can focus only on what is essential to define your solutions.

Sure he was expecting a practical language and was designing one. Lisp was from day zero a project to implement a real programming language for a computer.

Earlier he experimented with IPL and also list processing programming on Fortran. The plan was to implement a Lisp compiler. At first the Lisp code McCarthy was experimenting with, was manually translated to machine code.

Then came up the idea to use EVAL as a base for an interpreter, which was implemented by manually translating the Lisp code to machine language. Around 1962 then a compiler followed.

https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/c...

I'm in a 4th camp: we should be writing our applications against a relational data model and _not_ marshaling query results into and out of Objects at all.

Elaborations on this approach:

- https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...

- https://riffle.systems/essays/prelude/

The short ask: Anyone know of any projects that bring incremental view maintenance to SQLite?

The why:

Applications are usually read heavy. It is a sad state of affairs that, for these kinds of apps, we don't put more work on the write path to allow reads to benefit.

Would the whole No-SQL movement ever even have been a thing if relational databases had great support for materialized views that updated incrementally? I'd like to think not.

And more context:

I'm working to push the state of "functional relational programming" [1], [2] further forward. Materialized views with incremental updates are key to this. Bringing them to SQLite so they can be leveraged one the frontend would solve this whole quagmire of "state management libraries." I've been solving the data-sync problem in SQLite (https://vlcn.io/) and this piece is one of the next logical steps.

If nobody knows of an existing solution, would love to collaborate with someone on creating it.

[1] - https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/design/out-of-the-tar-pit.pdf

Here is a great Repo on GitHub named paers-we-love. You will surely find some great papers there and also some good other resources. Hope this helps.

However, f and g are interchangeable anywhere else (this is not actually true because their addresses can be obtained and compared; showing that a C-like language retains its referential transparency despite the existence of so-called l-values was the point of what I think is the first paper to introduce the notion referential transparency to the study of programming languages: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/l...)