Opal VS libsql

It's been a long time dream for me since about 2013 when I started getting deep into Ruby and Rails, to be able to write Ruby code for the frontend instead of JavaScript. I was a lover and adopter of CoffeeScript (which had it's flaws and imperfections), but that mostly got killed by ES6. I wrote some PoCs with Opal[1] that felt pretty good to write, but the overhead was rough (this was many years ago so things might be different now) and I never really felt like I didn't have to know about or care about the underlying javascript. I tend to discard leaky abstractions as I feel they often add more complexity than they were meant to cover in the first place.

Has anybody used this or Opal or anything else? What is the state of "write your frontend in Ruby" nowadays?

[1]: https://github.com/opal/opal

Every time I see a respectable project use a Code of Conduct I remind myself that, unfortunately, Caroline Ada won[1]

[1] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

But we shouldn't overstate the difference: the JS and Ruby object models are actually similar in how dynamic both of them are. This makes Ruby-to-JS compilers like Opal easier to implement, according to an Opal maintainer.

This is an interview with the author of Opal, here's the project:

https://github.com/opal/opal

Not the OP, but from what I remember they would seek out every possible opportunity in every single possible open source community they could find and propose the CoC that they wrote. 0 contributions to the projects, with the exception of demanding that people implement incredibly verbose CoC's in their projects under the guise of "protecting the minorities contributing to the projects".

Most infamous instance is probably this one, in the Opal repo: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

As well as this thread in the Ruby issue tracker that devolves into pure chaos with Ada refusing to actually participate in any of the valid points others bring up: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004

And I'm sure there's many other instances if you look around a bit.

My experience with ruby for front end web dev is via https://opalrb.com/

Here's an example of the creator of the most adopted CoC (the Contributor Covenant) trying to get an open source contributor removed from a project due to his political opinions expressed on Twitter which she didn't like and found offensive.

So ruby has a JS transpiler - opal - https://opalrb.com/

I tried using it a little bit but the reality is if you need JS to make your app more interactable it's really worth it to just learn some JS. As soon as you need something complex the extra layer of abstraction just gets in the way and becomes more of a headache, and if you don't need anything complex then you don't need JS in the first place.

I stumbled upon this thing from years ago. I did some more digging to see what other communities thought about it. Turns out that a lot of people are really against Coraline's side.

> PS: I've got nothing against Turso, or libSQL. In fact I spent the last year perusing their virtual WAL API. The problem is that I found no documentation, nor any useful open source implementations of it. If there any I'd be very interested. So, thus far, I also don't have anything that drives towards libSQL.

Hey, this is v and I am an engineer at Turso. We do have some documentation and an example implementation of Virtual WAL

docs: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/blob/ef44612/libsql-...

example: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/blob/ef44612/libsql-...

for an open source implementation, you may check how Bottomless works. Bottomless is another project which does back up like litestream and it internally implements a Virtual WAL.

Bottomless - https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/bottomless

I am sure we can improve our docs, make it more discover-able and easy to find. I am open to feedback and suggestions!

Astro DB is powered by LibSQL, an open source fork of SQLite that was created by Turso. You can use Astro DB's drop-in database to build features like blogs, comment functionality, forums, feedback systems, and user authentication.

sqlite already had an active community fork started by Turso called libsql. They are fixing longstanding API gaps the upstream team isn’t interested in supporting. For example, they added a native write-ahead log API, so you can plug directly into the WAL for streaming replication. This is possible-ish with upstream sqlite + LiteFs but litefs has to implement a whole FUSE file system and can’t run on Mac for that reason.

It’s more risky to run libsql because new features mean new bugs, but it seems worth it to me.

Libsql: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql

A bit of a tangent but for those who’d like to use SQLite for a backend, running it as a separate daemon could be an interesting choice, which would also remove there need of Cgo for the build and maybe make things like separate background job processes easier to accomplish. See [1], [2].

—-

1: https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/tree/main/libsql-ser...

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38602175

https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

To summarize, instead of using one of the OSS licenses, the copyright holders simply declare the source to be in the public domain. In order to preserve that status they don't accept patches unless you submit some signed document that you agree with that.

To make things more complicated, they also use their a relatively niche version management system instead of git. Which would complicate making contributions (if they accepted them).

There's a popular fork that fixes all of these issues: https://github.com/libsql/libsql It is MIT licensed, on Github, and open for contributions.

Kind of a weird legal situation for a popular project like this that so many people depend on to have. Not judging; but it is odd. Seems like a lot of wasted efforts between users, would be contributors, and the people that forked this thing to address all that.

You could try making feature requests for https://github.com/libsql/libsql , which is a community fork of SQLite that aims to speed-up the development of long-wanted features.

For a comprehensive view, check out the issues list for libSQL core and sqld. But mostly, I want libSQL to be a home for all builders who believe there is room to take a lean, mean, and SQLite-compatible embedded database to new heights. I’d love to see your contribution!