ivy VS go

My recent exposure to array programming languages came via a podcast called The Array Cast[1]

Not affiliated, just recommending. The regular co-hosts appear to each be experienced with various array languages such as J, APL, etc. They don't get deeply technical, but it's a nice introduction, especially on explaining the appeal.

A recent episode had Rob Pike (UTF-8, Go, etc.) on to talk about his array based calculator, Ivy[2]

[1] https://www.arraycast.com/

[2] https://github.com/robpike/ivy

I enjoyed russ cox's advent of code series using rob pike's ivy (https://github.com/robpike/ivy), an apl-like calculator

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrwpzH1_9ufMLOB6BAdzO...

Ivy is an APL-like programming language created by Rob Pike https://github.com/robpike/ivy

Ivy is another APL like language and one I kind of enjoy, because operations are actually readable and writable.

https://github.com/robpike/ivy

I really like Ivy as a simple, friendly introduction to APL. There is a surprising lack of APL-derived languages that use words to name things -- most stick with the original symbols; J and friends choose equally-cryptic symbols composed of ASCII characters.

Earlier this year I decided to solve AoC 2021 in Ivy, then watch Russ Cox's videos to see how he did it and use that to learn something about array programming -- a topic I knew absolutely nothing about going into this.

Unfortunately, Ivy really is, as Rob Pike says, a plaything. It is buggy -- if you ever write a function that returns a vector or a higher-rank array, you are entering bizarre undefined behavior territory. The array-language equivalent of "concat_map" or "flat_map" or "map-cat" or whatever you want to call it just produces garbage values, which is very confusing when you're learning about array programming for the first time ("Wait, this vector says its length is 25, but it contains 50 elements...?" or "The transpose of this array is just the first column repeated over and over??").

Beyond that, a very cool thing about array languages is that, you know, functions can implicitly act on entire arrays. You can multiple a vector by 2 and it will know to multiply every element in the vector by 2, because multiplication is defined for scalars.

But in Ivy, this is only true for the built-in functions. There is no way to write user-defined functions that have this implicit act-on-every-element behavior. Which is basically the looping primitive in array languages -- so to do anything nontrivial, you have to write it out with explicit recursion (still with the caveat that your functions can only return scalars, or you enter undefined behavior town) or rewrite your operations as binary operations with an ignored right-hand side and use "fold" to "map" them. It's bad.

The latter is crippling enough that Russ Cox [eventually forks Ivy](https://github.com/robpike/ivy/pull/83) to add support for it, but it is not currently part of the language.

Anyway that's a long comment to say: Ivy is a good, friendly introduction to APL syntax (stranding, precedence, etc) and some array language concepts, but it is far more of a calculator than a programming language.

But it's a good arbitrary-precision calculator! And if you're still interested in trying it, maybe check out this thing I made. It's an... Ivy programming environment?... that lets you run Ivy scripts and see the results inline. (Ivy's repl is... very primitive, and has to be wrapped by something like readline. Russ Cox uses 9term to get around this; self-modifying programs are my preferred approach.)

https://github.com/ianthehenry/privy

My frustration with Ivy led me to look into other array languages, trying to find one that 1) used English words instead of cryptic symbols and 2) worked. And I really couldn't find any! Someone should do something about that. :)

But your project is all about the command ytdial, so I think having a separate cmd directory is superfluous. Rob Pike also has project ivy which is laid out like this.

must.Do proposal https://github.com/golang/go/issues/54297

Go instalado

This melding of the sync and the async is actually kinda interesting to me. I know that at least in lots of environments, the sync and async paths are effectively separate for things like I/O[1]. I wondered (and still do for some cases) how Go handles this.

For those curious I looked at Windows and Linux, but not much else.

Linux: no io_uring support. There's debate on even whether to use it as people are discussing security implications[2]. It looks like (from perusing this issue, but could be wrong) AIO wasn't used.

Windows: it looks like they're using IOCP everywhere. Seems sensible enough.

General case: there seems to be an open issue regarding this[3].

[1]: For example, Windows has IOCPs, Linux has io_uring, FreeBSD has kqueue, POSIX has... POSIX AIO, etc.

[2]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/31908

[3]: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/6817

In today's fast-paced software development landscape, efficient workflows and clear responsibilities between development and design teams are crucial. One effective way to streamline these workflows is by automating component generation from design tools like Figma to code using powerful programming languages like Golang. This article will explore the process of converting Figma components to code, focusing on the clear differentiation of responsibilities between development and design teams.

> The Go database/sql package actually executes ROLLBACK in the SQL engine.

No: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/beaf7f3282c2548267d3c89441...

Nice write-up.

It's a shame that errors.Is is slow for general use, and at least some of that seems attributable to the Comparable change requiring reflection. Multi-errors seems to have bloated the switch. And of course the lack of a happy-path that was fixed in [1].

Since Go already has two ways of handling exceptional state: return or panic, it does feel like a stretch to also introduce a "not found" path too. All bets are off in tight inner loops, but I think as a general coding practice, it'll make the language (de facto) more complicated/ambiguous.

But my take away is that the question has been kicked off: can wrapped errors be made more efficient?

1. https://github.com/golang/go/commit/af43932c20d5b59cdffca454...

I know that at least two engineers from the runtime team have seen the post in the #darkarts channel of gopher slack. One of them left a fire emoji :).

I'll probably bring it up in the by-weekly Go runtime diagnostics sync [1] next Thursday, but my guess is that they'll have the same conclusion as me: Neat trick, but not a good idea for the runtime until hardware shadow stacks become widely available and accessible.

[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/57175

I guess the meta programming that most often gets used with //go:generate ends up being text/template.

The Go sort algorithm (pdqsort) is implemented in this way so the same algorithm can be used to implement the various existing sort APIs.

https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/sort/gen_sort_v...