go-duckdb VS budibase

DuckDB also has date functions and Go bindings

I've been beating my head trying to get duckdb to statically link into a Go program (I'm neither an expert with cgo nor ld). If anyone else has been able to do this I'd love to see your build steps.

https://github.com/marcboeker/go-duckdb produces a non-static binary by default.

Here is a solved Github Issue related to CGO for the Go bindings! If you have another issue, please feel free to post it on their Github page!

https://github.com/marcboeker/go-duckdb/issues/4

Yeah frankly the q benchmark isn't the best even though dsq compares favorably in it. It isn't well documented and exercises a very limited amount of functionality and isn't very rigorous from what I can see. That said, the caching q does is likely very solid (and not something dsq does).

The biggest risk I think with octosql (and cube2222 is here somewhere to disagree with me if I'm wrong) is that they have their own entire SQL engine whereas textql, q and dsq use SQLite. But q is also in Python whereas textql, octosql, and dsq are in Go.

In the next few weeks I'll be posting some benchmarks that I hope are a little fairer (or at least well-documented and reproducible). Though of course it would be appropriate to have independent benchmarks too since I now have a dog in the fight.

On a tangent, once the go-duckdb binding [0] matures I'd love to offer duckdb as an alternative engine flag within dsq (and DataStation). Would be neat to see.

[0] https://github.com/marcboeker/go-duckdb

Budibase is great at generating CRUD apps based on a model.

https://budibase.com/

Congratulations to the Airplane team.

Is this Airtable moving in the direction of low-code rather than no code? Puts them up against tools like Budibase [https://github.com/Budibase/budibase] and Retool [Https://retool.com]

I skipped to chapter 9 in the article ("Clogged"), and it looked like Pipes failed because it didn't have a large enough team or a well-defined mission. As a result they couldn't offer a super robust product that would lure in enterprise users. "You could not purchase some number of guaranteed-to-work Pipes calls per month" is the quote from the article.

The reason I think that interesting is because that's the model these days for everything from AI tokens to Monday.com seats. It makes me feel like Pipes was before its time.

That said I've been collecting different "business glue" products that are similar to Pipes. To me, like you say, they aren't as interesting, exciting and intuitive as Pipes was, but maybe it just takes a little more digging. I tried to focus on open source tools but some aren't.

- n8n io: https://n8n.io/integrations/mondaycom/

- Node-RED: https://nodered.org/ (just read about this one in this thread)

- trigger dev: trigger.dev

- automatisch.io: https://automatisch.io/docs/

- Activepieces: https://www.activepieces.com/docs/getting-started/introducti...

- Huginn: https://github.com/huginn/huginn

- budibase: https://budibase.com/

- windmill: https://www.windmill.dev/

- tooljet: https://www.tooljet.com/workflows

- Bracket: https://www.usebracket.com/pricing (just SalesForce <-> PostgreSQL)

- Zapier: zapier.com/

Anyway I hope some of these are fun!

Budibase is open-source, including the workflow platform which has helped accelerate thousands of workflows already:

https://github.com/Budibase/budibase

(4) Budibase | Build internal tools in minutes, the easy way. https://budibase.com/.

Also missing these app builders, both of which are open source but offer managed hosting:

* Budibase https://budibase.com

Buildbase