papers-we-love VS git-internals-pdf

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...)

For me the Peepcode Git Internals book was a great peek under the hood. I went from "Git has a lot of magical incantations" to "Git is pretty simple and I could probably build a version of it".

I generally recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book. The first half explains the internals of how Git works, and the second half is a command reference.

Once you get the hang of basic Git operations, you should look into how Git works under the hood. Git Internals helped me a lot on this.

❯ git log --graph --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit --all * 150c57d (HEAD -> squash-merge) Squashed commit of the following: | * 535b740 (no-squash-merge) Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge |/| | * 1836f1c (work-branch) And more | * 4b84cfe Add more |/ * 16660f8 (main) Add more * 02a154b Initial commit ❯ git cat-file -p no-squash-merge tree 58c1fb22faa444b264e98a5ae4c4ddb07be09697 parent 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c parent 1836f1c53221ae701a038bf5ae380770ea911665 author Manuel Odendahl 1653304391 -0400 committer Manuel Odendahl 1653304391 -0400 Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge * work-branch: And more Add more squash-merges-considered-harmful on  squash-merge on ☁️ ttc (us-east-1) ❯ git cat-file -p squash-merge tree 58c1fb22faa444b264e98a5ae4c4ddb07be09697 parent 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c author Manuel Odendahl 1653304543 -0400 committer Manuel Odendahl 1653304543 -0400 Squashed commit of the following: commit 1836f1c53221ae701a038bf5ae380770ea911665 Author: Manuel Odendahl Date: Mon May 23 07:11:08 2022 -0400 And more commit 4b84cfe11aa51da994448e602e1bc4cc6083d691 Author: Manuel Odendahl Date: Mon May 23 07:11:03 2022 -0400 Add more * ``` {% endraw %} You can see that save that both {% raw %}`squash-merge`{% endraw %} and {% raw %}`no-squash-merge`{% endraw %} point to the exact same tree. The only changed thing is the commit message, and the missing parent in the squash merge. To read more about the underpinnings of git, I can recommend just experimenting with the git command line, and the following resources: - [Building Git by James Coglan](https://shop.jcoglan.com/building-git/) - [Git Internals by Scott Chacon](https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf) ## But the history! But Manuel, you say, the history is so much cleaner! To which I counter that it is actually not. If you want to hide the link to the right parent of the non-squash merge (as it is called, the left parent being {% raw %}`main`{% endraw %} ), all you need to do is to hide it. If you use the command-line or a proper tool, use the option to only show first parents. If you only look at the first parent, and configure your git tool to fill in a full log history of the branch into the merge commit message (I personally use the github CLI {% raw %}`gh`{% endraw %} or some git-commit hooks to do it), the squash merge commit is identical to the non squash merge commit. A favorite {% raw %}`git log`{% endraw %} command of mine to quickly look at the history of the main branch, and create a changelog: {% raw %} ```shell > git log --pretty=format:'# %ad %H %s' --date=short --first-parent --reverse # 2022-05-23 02a154bc4f0fa9bca567676d45d136619c076a95 Initial commit # 2022-05-23 16660f8b1d1538ed1b55d8533b3ee7feb68e474c Add more # 2022-05-23 535b740f42e331175f3766c1374116e329a78f7e Merge branch 'work-branch' into no-squash-merge

I often recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book. The first half talks about how Git works internally. The second half is a "how to use Git" tutorial. I think understanding the internals (which aren't really that complicated) can really help to demystify Git.

Conceptually, Git's not really all that complicated. I always recommend people to read the Peepcode Git Internals book (originally $9, now free): https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf/blob/master/drafts/peepcode-git.pdf

Check out this page if you haven't yet (alternatively, direct link to the PDF.) I hear it's all good, but the Understanding Git chapter is the one I'd specifically point you to.

I still very much recommend the Peepcode Git Internals book.

https://github.com/pluralsight/git-internals-pdf/releases