jupytext.vim
tup
jupytext.vim | tup | |
---|---|---|
4 | 23 | |
294 | 1,142 | |
- | - | |
4.4 | 7.7 | |
7 months ago | about 1 month ago | |
Vim Script | C | |
MIT License | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
jupytext.vim
-
Edit notebooks in Google cloud
I tried plugins like jupytext.vim but it was not enough mature in these old times :-)
-
Jupyter Notebooks in NeoVim. Any good way?
You can also use jupytext.vim to easily open and edit notebooks. Then you can use a REPL program to evaluate the different cells individually. The only downside to me is that you can’t save the output back to the notebook (images etc.).
-
jupyter and vim
Editing *.ipynb files can also be edited with jupytext.vim, which automatically converts *.ipynb files using jupytext which you open them in Vim. I haven't tried this yet (it's on my todo list), but it looks pretty solid.
-
Nbterm: Jupyter Notebooks in the Terminal
For editing notebooks in vim, I've created https://github.com/goerz/jupytext.vim. Note that this does not allow to run any cells, it just edits the inputs.
The motivation behind this was to have some basic interaction with existing ipynb files on a remote server without having to run the jupyter server (and set up port forwarding etc.) It's worth noting that the `jupytext.vim plugin is most useful if you're actually not running `jupytext` within jupyter; If you are, you could just directly open the .py or .md files linked to any .ipynb in your editor.
I've used `jupytext.vim` to edit existing notebooks and then run them through `jupyter nbconvert --to notebook --execute`. It's also great for refactoring: moving code from a notebook files into a module, between notebooks, or to create a new notebook as a variation of an existing one.
tup
-
Show HN: Hancho – A simple and pleasant build system in ~500 lines of Python
Whenever looking at one these, I think back to the obscure but interesting "tup":
“How is it so awesome? In a typical build system, the dependency arrows go down. Although this is the way they would naturally go due to gravity, it is unfortunately also where the enemy's gate is. This makes it very inefficient and unfriendly. In tup, the arrows go up.”
https://gittup.org/tup/
-
Mazzle – A Pipelines as Code Tool
Once upon a time, you could roll your own of this using `tup` which might have my favorite "how it works" in the readme:
How is it so awesome?
In a typical build system, the dependency arrows go down. Although this is the way they would naturally go due to gravity, it is unfortunately also where the enemy's gate is. This makes it very inefficient and unfriendly. In tup, the arrows go up. This is obviously true because it rhymes. See how the dependencies differ in make and tup:
[ Make vs. Tup ]
See the difference? The arrows go up. This makes it very fast.
https://gittup.org/tup/
Also has a whitepaper: https://gittup.org/tup/build_system_rules_and_algorithms.pdf
- Using LD_PRELOAD to cheat, inject features and investigate programs
- Mk: A Successor to Make [pdf]
-
What should I use to take notes in college?
Ten years ago, I used reStructuredText and its support for LaTeX math and syntax highlighting. I used tup (tup monitor -a -f) to take care of running rst2html on save.
- Knit: Making a Better Make
-
Buck2: Our open source build system
I might be showing my ignorance here, but this just sounds like Tup? https://gittup.org/tup/
-
Small Project Build Systems (2021)
I agree. While I like the idea of tup (https://gittup.org/tup/ -- the first "forward" build system I remember hearing of), writing a makefile is easy enough that thinking about the problem upside-down doesn't offer a compelling reason to switch.
Ptrace is one option for tracing dependencies, but it comes with a performance hit. A low-level alternative would be ftrace (https://lwn.net/Articles/608497/) or dtrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTrace).
Tup uses LD_PRELOAD (or equivalent) to intercept calls to C file i/o functions. On OSX it looks DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES would be the equivalent.
-
Why Use Make
* order-only prerequisites - X must happen before Y if it's happening but a change in X doesn't trigger Y
This is just a small selection and there are missing things (like how to handle rules that affect multiple targets).
It's all horrible and complex because like a lot of languages there's a manual listing the features but not much in the way of motivations for how or why you'd use them so you have to find that out by painful experience.
It's also very difficult to address the warts and problems in (GNU) make because it's so critical to the build systems of so many packages that any breaking change could end up being a disaster for 1000s of packages used in your favorite linux distribution or even bits of Android and so on.
So it's in a very constrained situation BECAUSE of it's "popularity".
Make is also not a good way to logically describe your build/work - something like Meson would be better - where you can describe on the one hand what a "program" model was as a kind of class or interface and on the other an implementation of the many nasty operating system specific details of how to build an item of that class or type.
Make has so many complex possible ways of operating (sometimes not all needed) that it can be hard to think about.
The things that Make can do end up slowing it down as a parser such that for large builds the time to parse the makefile becomes significant.
Make uses a dependency tree - when builds get large one starts to want an Inverted Dependency Tree. i.e. instead of working out what the aim of the build is and therefore what subcomponents need to be checked for changes we start with what changed and that gives us a list of actions that have to be taken. This sidesteps parsing of a huge makefile with a lot of build information in it that is mostly not relevant at all to the things that have changed. TUP is the first tool I know about that used this approach and having been burned hard by make and ninja when it comes to parsing huge makefiles (ninja is better but still slow) I think TUP's answer is the best https://gittup.org/tup/
-
Content based change detection with Make
You might enjoy Tup[1] if you've not checked it out before.
[1]: https://gittup.org/tup/
What are some alternatives?
vim-ipython-cell - Seamlessly run Python code in IPython from Vim
please - High-performance extensible build system for reproducible multi-language builds.
jupyter-vim - Make Vim talk to Jupyter kernels
Taskfile - Repository for the Taskfile template.
nbterm - Jupyter Notebooks in the terminal.
magma-nvim - Interact with Jupyter from NeoVim.
jupyter - An interface to communicate with Jupyter kernels.
just - 🤖 Just a command runner
jupytext - Jupyter Notebooks as Markdown Documents, Julia, Python or R scripts
gnumake-windows - Instructions for building gnumake.exe as a native windows application
nvim-ipy - IPython/Jupyter plugin for Neovim
doit - task management & automation tool